Background: The adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to pharmacovigilance centre in tertiary care hospital was analysed to find out the incidence and causality.Methods: This was a retrospective study to analyse the ADR reported at pharmacovigilance centre after ethical clearance from Institutional Ethic Committee (IEC). ADR data were analysed and ADRs were categorized as department-wise, system affected and causative drug. The causality of each ADR was assessed by WHO-UMC scale.Results: The majority of patients who had suffered from ADRs were between 19-64 years of age (94.2%) and male patients (58.6%) were affected more than female (41.4%). Pulmonary medicine department has reported highest number of ADR followed by dermatology department. Skin (46.5%) was most affected system followed by gastrointestinal (30.45%), CNS (21.26%), respiratory (9.0%) and remaining systems. Rifampicin (13.79%) shows the largest numbers of ADR followed by zidovudine (13.21%), nevirapine (12.64%) and diclofenac sodium (8.0%). The maximum ADRs reported were probable (94.8%) followed by possible (5.2%).Conclusions: In conclusion, the skin was most affected system followed by gastrointestinal, central nervous and respiratory system. Rifampicin has caused maximum ADRs followed by zidovudine, nevirapine and diclofenac sodium. The causality analyses showed that majority of ADRs were probable (94.8%) while remaining falls in possible (5.2%) category.

Background: The present study was planned to assess the knowledge, attitude and practice among nursing staff and to evaluate the effect of educational intervention.Methods: The questionnaire related with knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) were given to nursing staff before and after the educational intervention in a tertiary care hospital. The data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis.Results: The training given in different sessions has improved KAP among nursing staff. Ninety six percent of them responded correctly regarding who can report ADR as compared to pre training session (69%). Regarding pharmacovigilance as purpose of safe use of medicines was responded by 71% after training as compared to 54% before training. In questions related to PvPI, 94% of nursing staff responded correctly about the scale to be used for causality assessment in comparison to 79% before training. Majority of them were of opinion that only unknown and serious ADR should be reported whereas after training they answered that all the ADR should be reported. A significant improvement has been noticed in questions related to attitude and practice.Conclusions: The educational intervention to improve KAP among nursing staff has resulted in significant improvement.

No abstract