Melding av legemiddelbivirkninger fra pasienter 2010 – 13

Fjermeros, Kamilla; Werner, Maren Caroline Frogner; Harg, Pernille; Samdal, Hilde; Slørdal, Lars; Spigset, Olav

doi:10.4045/tidsskr.14.1388

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the selected studies, one was conducted in the Netherlands with the inclusion of data from Norway [33] and the remainder were undertaken in Norway [34,35,36,37,38]. Three articles [34,36,37] were in the Norwegian language and the rest [33,35,38] were published in English. They all used a cross-sectional descriptive design for data collection and analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They all used a cross-sectional descriptive design for data collection and analysis. The findings of the selected studies on ADR reporting and handling in the Norwegian healthcare context were presented under three central aspects of ‘patient reporting schema’ [33,36], ‘healthcare provider reporting schema’ [33,34,36,37], and ‘current pharmacovigilance system’ [33,35,36,37,38]. The characteristics of the studies’ findings were summarized in Table 3.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Analgesics, including tramadol, codeine, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, were the most commonly mentioned drug group in the ADR reports. There were 1.1 psychotropic drugs per ADR report, and adverse mental and neurological reactions, such as dizziness, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts, were the most common suspected adverse reactions reported [36].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the review and analysis of all ADR reports submitted to NoMA by healthcare providers from 2010–2013 ( n = 9629), 58% of healthcare personnel reports were for female patients, most frequently in the age group 0–9 years (17%) and 60–69 years (13%). The number of suspected drugs per ADR report was 1.4, and the most frequently mentioned drug group in the ADR reports was vaccines, where non-specific symptoms and local reactions were the typical suspected adverse reactions [36]. 291 reports were submitted to RELIS by healthcare providers from 2013–2015 ( n = 409) on oral anticoagulants, including warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ADR reports from patients were more varied than those from healthcare providers. Overall, spontaneous patient ADR reporting supplemented healthcare providers ADR reporting [36].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Adverse Drug Reactions in Norway: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prescription medicines aim to relieve patients’ suffering but they can be associated with adverse side effects or adverse drug reactions (ADRs). ADRs are an important cause of hospital admissions and a financial burden on healthcare systems across the globe. There is little integrative and collective knowledge on ADR reporting and monitoring in the Norwegian healthcare system. Accordingly, this systematic review aims to investigate the current trends in ADR reporting, monitoring, and handling in the Norwegian healthcare system and describe related interventions. Appropriate keywords, with regard to ADRs in both English and Norwegian languages, were used to retrieve articles published from 2010 to 2019. Six articles met the inclusion criteria. The findings offer a comprehensive picture of ADR reporting and monitoring in the Norwegian healthcare system. Psychotropic medicines were most commonly implicated by patients, while professionals most commonly reported ADRs associated with anticoagulants. The current ADR systems were compiled with the involvement of both patients and healthcare providers to record all types of drugs and ADRs of various severities, and aimed at improving ADR tracking. However, there is a need to improve current initiatives in terms of feedback and quality, and more studies are needed to explore how ADR profiles, and the associated vigilance, can improve the safety of medicines management in Norway.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ADR reports from patients were more varied than those from healthcare providers. Overall, spontaneous patient ADR reporting supplemented healthcare providers ADR reporting [36].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Adverse Drug Reactions in Norway: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Re: Melding av legemiddelbivirkninger fra pasienter 2010 – 13

Jacobsen¹

2015

Tidsskriftet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Svarene er ikke enkle, men refleksjoner omkring disse spørsmå-lene, noen ganger sammen med pasienten selv, ofte sammen med pårørende og i stor grad sammen med pleierne som er naermest pasienten, vil svaert ofte gi god veiledning til hva som er god pleie og behandling.Når journalen inneholder klare retningslinjer for terminal omsorg og pleie, blir det enklere å unnlate innleggelse på sykehus, samarbeidet med pårørende blir positivt, pleiepersonalet føler seg trygge i sin rolle og jeg håper og tror at pasienten i siste instans blir vinneren. Konflikter mellom pårørende og helsepersonell om hvordan man skal ivareta den gamle pasienten skyldes svaert ofte misforståelser og uklarheter om målsetting, utrygghet om hvordan livsavslutningen vil bli og angst for smerter og andre plager knyttet til dødsprosessen. Vi kan aldri helt love smertefrihet, men når pårørende er forberedt og vet at helsepersonell har en planmessig tilnaerming og har mål om å hjelpe pasienten over grensen, er min erfaring at den siste veien kan bli meningsfull og trygg. Knut Lindhom Re: Melding av legemiddelbivirkninger fra pasienter 2010 -131221Den interessante studien av Fjermeros og medarbeidere (1) er dessverre preget av mangelen på fornuftig definisjon og kategorisering av bivirkninger, siden det er uklart for leseren hvordan dette har vaert gjort. Hvordan skal vi da tolke resultatene? Den siste tiden har definisjonen av bivirkninger blitt debattert i Dagens Medisin (2, 3). Her kommer det fram at Legemiddelverket nå definerer «bivirkninger av legemidler» som altomfattende uheldige og skadelige konsekvenser av legemidler, og at Helsedirektoratet støtter denne lojaliteten til EU-direktiv 2010/84/EU, gjennom EØS-tilpassingen.Jeg synes denne praksisen er meget uheldig. Som klinikere skal vi så tidlig som mulig oppdage om et (kanskje nytt) legemiddel kan vaere årsak til alvorlige helseskader, for eksempel fosterskader hos gravide. Som i annet klinisk arbeid er vitenskapelig stringens i diagnose og behandling essensielt.

show abstract