Patients' Identification, Management and Prevention of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients with Severe Adverse Drug Reactions.

Background: Few studies have been conducted on how patients identify, manage, and prevent severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs). This study aimed to explore the reasoning that patients use to identify symptoms of severe ADRs and the methods they employ to manage and prevent them. Methods: A cross-sectional survey using structured telephone interviews was administered to patients with a self-assessed severe ADR and to patients with serious skin ADRs from a hospital medical record database (in-patient and out-patient) from 1 September 2016 to 1 September 2019. Patients identified via the medical records were asked to assess their ADR for severity, and only patients that rated their ADR as severe were followed up with a telephone interview. Structured telephone interviews were conducted with respondents by a research pharmacist and audio-recorded. Results: A total of 722 patients with a severe ADR were identified, with 300 completing the interview (41.6%). The most frequently cited reasons for classifying ADRs as severe was worsening ADR symptoms (58.3%), severe ADR symptoms (44.4%), and ADR symptoms interfering with their life (36.4%). Only severe ADR symptoms were significantly different between the questionnaire and the medical records database groups (p = 0.007). The most frequent method of ADR management was discontinuation of drug by physicians (88.3%). About 79.0% of patients stated that they increased their carefulness when using other drugs after experiencing ADRs. The main method patients used to prevent ADRs was informing healthcare professionals (HCPs) about their drug allergy history (65.7%). Conclusions: Worsening ADR symptoms were often used to identify severe ADRs. However, HCPs were mainly responsible for the management and prevention of severe ADRs. Increasing awareness of ADRs by HCPs, and providing additional drug information, may improve patient safety.

Accuracy in patient-reported adverse drug reactions and their recognition: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The causality assessment tool can be utilized to assist patients in identifying adverse drug reactions (ADRs). AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of the causality assessment tool for patients identifying ADRs compared to assessments made by pharmacists, and to explore how patients recall and recognize symptoms as ADRs. METHOD: Mixed methods study consisting of self-administered questionnaires (phase 1) and semi-structured, face-to-face interviews (phase 2) with patients who had experienced ADRs in the past year at a tertiary care hospital in Thailand. RESULTS: Out of 769 questionnaires, 716 were returned and 622 of these were both valid and had at least one ADR (86.8%). Classification of patient-reported symptoms using the causality assessment tool found 12 (1.9%) highly-probable ADRs, 399 (64.1%) probable ADRs, 207 (33.3%) possible ADRs, and 4 (0.6%) that were not classified as ADRs. There was fair agreement between patient-assessed and pharmacist-assessed causality classifications using the Naranjo algorithm (K = 0.268) and the World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) criteria (K = 0.373). The timing relationship between the occurrence of symptoms and administration of a suspected drug was the most frequently mentioned reason that patients gave for recalling and recognizing suspected ADRs. CONCLUSION: Promoting the causality assessment tool for use by patients in collaboration with healthcare professionals is likely to enhance patients' ability to correctly identify ADRs and ultimately contribute to increased medication safety.

A nationwide survey of methods and barriers to adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting among hospital pharmacists in Thailand.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the methods of adverse drug reaction identification and monitoring used by hospital pharmacists in all regions of Thailand, to explore barriers to and pharmacists' attitudes towards adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting, and to assess the factors related to these aspects. METHODS: Pharmacists in 480 hospitals in Thailand were selected by stratified sampling. Self-administered questionnaires were sent by post and pharmacists returned completed questionnaires via QR code. KEY FINDINGS: In total, pharmacists at 286 hospitals returned the questionnaire (response rate = 59.6%). The most common adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring methods were the spontaneous reporting system (SRS), which was used by 100% of respondents, followed by high alert drug lists (73.1%) and routine adverse drug reaction monitoring (64.0%). The most frequently used methods of adverse drug reaction prevention were providing drug allergy card and recording allergy history in database. The major barrier to adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting among respondents was uncertainty about whether the suspected drug caused the reaction (49.3%). Pharmacists had a good attitude towards adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting (60.5%). Longer work experience (≥10 years) was negatively related with good attitudes towards adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting (OR = 0.535, P = 0.040), whereas higher education level was positively related (OR = 2.201, P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous reporting system is the main method used for adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting among hospital pharmacists in Thailand. Pharmacists had good attitudes towards adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting, however, barriers remain.

Severity and Management of Adverse Drug Reactions Reported by Patients and Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Adverse drug reaction (ADR) severity levels are mainly rated by healthcare professionals (HCPs), but patient ratings are limited. This study aimed to compare patient-rated and pharmacist-rated ADR severity levels and determined methods employed for ADR management and prevention by patients and HCPs. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in outpatients visiting two hospitals. Patients were asked about ADR experiences using a self-administered questionnaire, and additional information was retrieved from the medical records. In total, 617 out of 5594 patients had experienced ADRs (11.0%), but 419 patients were valid (68.0%). Patients commonly reported that their ADR severity level was moderate (39.4%), whereas pharmacists rated the ADRs as mild (52.5%). There was little agreement between patient-rated and pharmacist-rated ADR severity levels (κ = 0.144; p < 0.001). The major method of ADR management by physicians was drug withdrawal (84.7%), while for patients, it was physician consultation (67.5%). The main methods for ADR prevention by patients and HCPs were carrying an allergy card (37.2%) and recording drug allergy history (51.1%), respectively. A higher level of ADR bothersomeness was associated with higher ADR severity levels (p < 0.001). Patients and HCPs rated ADR severity and used ADR management and prevention methods differently. However, patient rating of ADR severity is a potential signal for severe ADR detection of HCPs.

Exploring Healthcare Professionals' Practices and Attitudes towards Monitoring and Reporting of Severe Adverse Drug Reactions.

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a key role in the monitoring of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The present study aims to explore practices and barriers of HCPs in severe ADR monitoring and reporting, to evaluate their attitudes towards the monitoring and to assess the related factors. Self-administered questionnaires produced in hard copy and Google form were sent to 510 HCPs by stratified random sampling. Of the 350 HCPs that responded (68.6%), 44.9% had ever monitored ADRs. The most common practices were the observation of abnormal symptoms for ADR identification (88.5%), discontinuation of the suspected drug for ADR management (88.5%) and advice on recurrent drug allergy for ADR prevention (88.5%). Most HCPs (93.0%) obtained further patient history to identify severe ADRs. The uncertainty of the causal relationship was a major barrier to ADR reporting (60.0%). Pharmacists were more involved with practices in ADR monitoring and reporting (OR 20.405; p < 0.001), whereas longer work experience (>20 years) was negatively related to the practices (OR 0.271; p = 0.024). Over one-third (37.6%) of HCPs had a positive attitude towards severe ADR monitoring. In conclusion, the practices in severe ADR monitoring varied among different professions. However, the barriers to the reporting of ADRs still exist; hence, improving knowledge and cooperation among HCPs should be promoted.