Patient self-eports of potential adverse drug reactions

Krska, Janet; Jarernsiripornkul, Narumol; Capps, Phillip A.; Richards, R. M. E.

doi:10.1111/j.2042-7174.2001.tb01095.x

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings are consistent with those from other studies. For example, Krska et al (2001) found that 89% of patients taking either tramadol or venlafaxine reported at least one ADR. Only 58% of these patients reported the ADR to their general practitioner, and only 22% of the ADRs were documented in the patient's casenotes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recording adverse drug reactions in a forensic psychiatry unit: how can we improve standards?

Gibbon

Khalifa

2005

The British Journal of Forensic Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any drug may produce unwanted or unexpected adverse effects. The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines an Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) as: a response to a drug that is noxious and unintended and occurs at doses normally used in man for the prophylaxis, diagnosis or therapy of diseases, or for the modification of physiological function (WHO, 1972).ADRs are increasingly recognised as important causes of morbidity and mortality. It is estimated that one in sixteen acute general hospital admissions is attributable to adverse drug reactions. ADRs are also responsible for up to 10,000 deaths a year in the United Kingdom, and cost the NHS around £446 million each year (Pirmohamed et al, 2004).Psychotropic medications often have to be taken long-term, and because of their central action may produce a wide range of adverse effects. Several studies have shown that psychiatric patients' physical health tends to be worse than that of the general population, and that they may be less able to access medical services for their physical problems. These factors may put patients with psychiatric illness at increased risk of ADRs.Patients in forensic psychiatry units may be at still further increased risk of ADRs. In these settings, patients are more likely to have severe psychiatric illnesses and to demonstrate treatment resistance, which is thought to contribute to the high proportion of these patients who are prescribed high-dose and multiple psychotropic medications. For example, Acosta-Armas et al (2004) Recording adverse drug reactions in a forensic psychiatry unit: how can we improve standards?

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recording adverse drug reactions in a forensic psychiatry unit: how can we improve standards?

Gibbon

Khalifa

2005

The British Journal of Forensic Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…15 Similar results comparing spontaneous reporting of ADRs with other methods have been reported. 22 Although the time periods were different in that the calculated ADR rate for spontaneous reporting was based on 2004 data, a similar rate was reported to CARM in 2005. 15 There is an association between the number of medicines being taken and the risk of experiencing an ADR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Investigation of Trigger Tools for Detecting Adverse Drug Reactions

Zolezzi

Forbes²,

Parsotam

et al. 2007

Pharmacy Practice and Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite the high morbidity and mortality associated with adverse drug events (ADEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) the ability to detect and report them systematically remains inefficient. Aim To investigate if the use of a modified ADE trigger tool could improve the identification of ADRs in hospitals. Method Retrospective review of patients' discharge summaries was conducted at a tertiary care facility over a 5‐week period. A modified ADE trigger tool (based on a previous model) was used to assess four high‐risk medicines (warfarin, heparin, morphine, benzodiazepines). ADEs identified were classified using both the Naranjo probability scale and the WHO ADR classification. Results Data from 528 patients were reviewed, of which 286 (54%) received at least 1 of the 4 high‐risk medicines. 45 patients (8.5%) were identified using the modified trigger tool as having had an ADE during their hospital stay. The modified ADE trigger tool improved the identification of ADRs compared with the spontaneous reporting system, regardless of the classification method used. Both the WHO and Naranjo classification scales yielded higher rates than the spontaneous reporting rate of 0.07% recorded by the New Zealand Centre for ADR Monitoring. Conclusion The modified ADE trigger tool appears to be a sensitive method for identifying ADRs. The results indicate that using the modified trigger tool yields significantly higher ADR reporting rates than the traditional spontaneous reporting system.

show abstract

“…This leads to taking a decision to do an intervention of a new health care teamwork approach with an intention to complete patient care during ATT with a special preference on ADR reporting system. The evidence of patient's definite role in ADR and their willingness to report the ADR [22][23][24][25] were planned to utilize in this study by expecting a good adherence. Here comes the importance of pharmaceutical care based approach to the TB patient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of Self Reporting Pharmacovigilance in Anti Tubercular Therapy Using Knowledge Based Approach

K¹

2013

J Pharmacovigilance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient self-eports of potential adverse drug reactions

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Recording adverse drug reactions in a forensic psychiatry unit: how can we improve standards?

Recording adverse drug reactions in a forensic psychiatry unit: how can we improve standards?

Investigation of Trigger Tools for Detecting Adverse Drug Reactions

Implementation of Self Reporting Pharmacovigilance in Anti Tubercular Therapy Using Knowledge Based Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About