ABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems , Thalidomide/adverse effectsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To discover the view of primary care doctors on aspects of the safety of medicines, their knowledge of the programme of automatic notification of negative side-effects of medicines (NSEM), their opinion of the programme and factors affecting low notification. DESIGN: A survey of views. SETTING: Madrid's Health Area 1. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners and paediatricians (n = 417). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: 281 doctors (67.4%) replied. 88.4% (48 + 40.4%) said they included questions on possible side-effects in the case history interview (always or almost always). 58.2% suspected at least one negative side-effect each month. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors are very interested in detecting and identifying the NSEM of their patients, and therefore believe that a centralised system to record NSEM should be set up.
Subject(s)
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems , Attitude of Health Personnel , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Physicians/psychology , Primary Health Care , Adult , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Physicians/statistics & numerical data , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Spain , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence in out-patients of risk factors leading to venous thromboembolic disease (VTE); and to analyse what perception primary care centre (PCC) doctors have of this risk and what attitude they adopt to therapy. DESIGN: 1) An observational, crossover study, with patients included at random. 2) A study with a teaching intervention, which was neither controlled nor randomised. PATIENTS: PCC patients over 25 seen either on demand, with appointments or at home. INTERVENTION: A clinical history was composed, using a closed questionnaire. A risk category and therapeutic attitude were then assigned. A guide on prevention and treatment of VTD was presented and discussed in clinical sessions. RESULTS: 11 PCC doctors polled 272 patients. 45 of these had moderate to high risk of VTD; and 4 had one of the criteria of the European Accord on VTD prevention for commencing prophylactic treatment. In two of these four, it was thought necessary to start prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of patients with moderate to high risk of VTD is 17% in patients over 25 who seek medical attention at PCCs. Doctors detected 50% of moderate to high risk patients. If the criteria used for in-patients were followed, prophylaxis should have been started in 1.5% of patients.
