Peut-on améliorer la notification des effets indésirables dans les établissements hospitaliers ? Bilan de 5 ans d’activité du réseau PharmacoMIP

Jacquot, Julien; Gony, Mireille; Baudrin, Dominique; Chastel, Xavier; Montastruc, Jean‐Louis; Bagheri, Haleh

doi:10.2515/therapie/2012017

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most developed countries face this situation 15 , 19 . Worldwide, many approaches have been completed to fight the major problem of ADR underreporting, such as regular visits to health professionals 10 , questionnaire studies 2 , educational interventions (including workshops, meetings and presentations) 4 , 12 , 16 , among others.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE To describe different approaches to promote adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals, determining their cost-effectiveness.METHODS We analyzed and compared several approaches taken by the Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre (Portugal) to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Approaches were compared regarding the number and relevance of adverse drug reaction reports obtained and costs involved. Costs by report were estimated by adding the initial costs and the running costs of each intervention. These costs were divided by the number of reports obtained with each intervention, to assess its cost-effectiveness.RESULTS All the approaches seem to have increased the number of adverse drug reaction reports. We noted the biggest increase with protocols (321 reports, costing 1.96 € each), followed by first educational approach (265 reports, 20.31 €/report) and by the hyperlink approach (136 reports, 15.59 €/report). Regarding the severity of adverse drug reactions, protocols were the most efficient approach, costing 2.29 €/report, followed by hyperlinks (30.28 €/report, having no running costs). Concerning unexpected adverse drug reactions, the best result was obtained with protocols (5.12 €/report), followed by first educational approach (38.79 €/report).CONCLUSIONS We recommend implementing protocols in other pharmacovigilance centers. They seem to be the most efficient intervention, allowing receiving adverse drug reactions reports at lower costs. The increase applied not only to the total number of reports, but also to the severity, unexpectedness and high degree of causality attributed to the adverse drug reactions. Still, hyperlinks have the advantage of not involving running costs, showing the second best performance in cost per adverse drug reactions report.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Improving adverse drug event reporting by healthcare professionals

Shalviri,

Mohebbi,

Mirbaha

et al. 2024

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Adverse drug events, encompassing both adverse drug reactions and medication errors, pose a significant threat to health, leading to illness and, in severe cases, death. Timely and voluntary reporting of adverse drug events by healthcare professionals plays a crucial role in mitigating the morbidity and mortality linked to unexpected reactions and improper medication usage. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of different interventions aimed at healthcare professionals to improve the reporting of adverse drug events. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and several other electronic databases and trials registers, including ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, from inception until 14 October 2022. We also screened reference lists in the included studies and relevant systematic reviews. Selection criteria We included randomised trials, non‐randomised controlled studies, controlled before‐after studies, interrupted time series studies (ITS) and repeated measures studies, assessing the effect of any intervention aimed at healthcare professionals and designed to increase adverse drug event reporting. Eligible comparators were healthcare professionals' usual reporting practice or a different intervention or interventions designed to improve adverse drug event reporting rate. We excluded studies of interventions targeted at adverse event reporting following immunisation. Our primary outcome measures were the total number of adverse drug event reports (including both adverse drug reaction reports and medication error reports) and the number of false adverse drug event reports (encompassing both adverse drug reaction reports and medication error reports) submitted by healthcare professionals. Secondary outcomes were the number of serious, high‐causality, unexpected or previously unknown, and new drug‐related adverse drug event reports submitted by healthcare professionals. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Data collection and analysis We followed standard methods recommended by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We extracted and reanalysed ITS study data and imputed treatment effect estimates (including standard errors or confidence intervals) for the randomised studies. Main results We included 15 studies (eight RCTs, six ITS, and one non‐randomised cross‐over study) with approximately 62,389 participants. All studies were conducted in high‐income countries in large tertiary care hospitals. There was a high risk of performance bias in the controlled studies due to the nature of the interventions. None of the ITS studies had a control arm, so we could not be sure of the detected effects being independent of other changes. None of the studies reported on the number of false adverse drug event reports submitted. There is low‐certainty evidence...

show abstract

Interventions to improve adverse drug reaction reporting: A scoping review

Khalili

Mesgarpour²,

Sharifi

et al. 2020

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Underreporting is the major limitation of a voluntary adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting system. Many studies have assessed the effectiveness of different interventions designed to improve ADR reporting. The aim of this study was to systematically map interventions and strategies to improve ADR reporting among health care professionals. Methods The six‐stage methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley was used to conduct this scoping review. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, All EBM, and Web of Science were systematically searched from 1999 to February 2019, and the reference lists of the included papers were also searched for gray literature to identify any interventions and strategies that aimed to increase ADR reporting. Two reviewers screened the papers for eligibility based on the inclusion criteria and extracted their key data and analyzed them descriptively. Results Ninety out of 14 501 papers met the selection criteria. Using computerized registration and active surveillance can increase ADR reporting significantly. Educational interventions performed individually or combined with sending reminders and/or feedback, awards, and providing easier reporting channels can improve ADR reporting over a short to medium term. Multiple interventions may have more impact than single‐component interventions. Conclusion Multiple interventions could cause a greater increase in ADR reporting rates than single interventions. Although educational interventions appear to be effective, few studies have reviewed their long‐term effects to ascertain whether the improvements are sustained over time. Studies with a better methodological quality are required on this subject.

show abstract

Peut-on améliorer la notification des effets indésirables dans les établissements hospitaliers ? Bilan de 5 ans d’activité du réseau PharmacoMIP

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches

Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches

Improving adverse drug event reporting by healthcare professionals

Interventions to improve adverse drug reaction reporting: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About