Pharmacist input into patients' self-reporting of adverse drug reactions.

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are common and should be reported to the CSM, particularly for newly marketed drugs. There is under-reporting of ADRs by doctors. Involving the patient in self-reporting, particularly when initiated by pharmacists is feasible and could help to improve reporting rates. This study investigated a comprehensive checklist questionnaire listed symptoms in all body systems to facilitate patient self-reporting using both established and new 'black triangle' centrally-acting drugs. Symptoms reported were compared to their documentation in medical notes and for new drugs to reports from other sources. A novel classification system for ADRs was developed to take account of the minimal data available and used to evaluate the potential accuracy of symptom attribution by patients. An external comparison of a sample of symptom classifications by an ADR expert was also obtained. The questionnaire was sent to 464 patients prescribed carbamazepine, sodium valproate, trazodone, doxepin and co-proxamol from three participating medical practices in a pilot study. Subsequently, it was sent to all patients (n=2307) prescribed tramadol, fentanyl patch, venlafaxine, nefazodone, citalopram, moclobemide, gabapentin, lamotrigine and topiramate from 79 participating medical practices in Grampian during January-March 1997. The overall response rates were 44.6% (n=207) for the pilot study and 36.3% (n=837) for the main study. The most frequently reported symptoms were: drowsiness for carbamazepine, unusual tiredness for sodium valproate, constipation for co-proxamol, dry mouth for trazodone, doxepin, tramadol, venlafaxine, nefazodone, moclobemide and citalopram, weight gain for gabapentin, loss of memory for lamotrigine, weight loss for topiramate and constipation for fentanyl patch. Overall only 22.4% (522/2330) of symptoms reported by patients were recorded by GPs in the 310 medical notes accessed. In general, common symptoms were reported more frequently by patients than in CSM reports and PEM data. Patients tended to report minor and known ADRs which bothered them, while CSM and PEM reports received were of more severe ADRs. Respondents were more likely to report symptoms (6040/8630,70%) potentially caused by the study drugs than those not to be caused by the study drugs. Moderate agreement (Kappa = 0.4-0.5) was found between expert and researcher classifications of symptom causality. It is suggested that interpretation by pharmacists of patient self-reporting using the checklist questionnaire could result in much higher ADR reporting rates, in particular for new drugs

Experiences and Views of Medicine Information Among the General Public in Thailand

Purpose: Written and electronic medicine information are important for improving patient knowledge and safe use of medicines. Written medicine information in Thailand is mostly in the form of printed package inserts (PIs), designed for health professionals, with few medicines having patient information leaflets (PILs). The aim of this study was to determine practices, needs and expectations of Thai general public about written and electronic medicine information and attitudes towards PILs. Patients and Methods: Cross-sectional survey, using self-completed questionnaires, was distributed directly to members of the general public in a large city, during January to March 2019. It explored experiences of using information, expectations, needs and attitudes, the latter measured using a 10-item scale. Differences between sub-groups were assessed, applying the Bonferroni correction to determine statistical significance. Results: Of the total 851 questionnaires distributed, 550 were returned (64.2%). The majority of respondents (88%) had received PIs, but only a quarter (26.2%) had received PILs. Most respondents (78.5%) had seen medicine information in online form. High educational level and income increased the likelihood of receiving PILs and electronic information. The majority of respondents (88.5%) perceived PILs as useful, but 70% considered they would still need information about medicines from health professionals. Indication, drug name and precautions were the most frequently read information in PIs and perceived as needed in PILs. Three-quarters of respondents would read electronic information if it were available, with more who had received a PIL having previously searched for such information compared to those who had not. All respondents had positive overall attitudes towards PILs. Conclusion: Experiences of receiving PILs and electronic medicine information in Thailand are relatively limited. However, the general public considered PILs as a useful source of medicine information. Electronic medicine information was desired and should be developed to be an additional source of information for consumers

Public confidence in ADR identification and their views on ADR reporting: mixed method study

Purpose: The value of patients as potential reporters into pharmacovigilance systems is acknowledged worldwide and allowed in Thailand. However, nothing is known about the Thai public’s awareness of direct patient reporting facility or their views concerning it. This study aimed to determine confidence among members of the public in identifying suspected ADRs, information sources they use and their views towards direct ADR reporting. Methods: Mixed methods study consisting of self-administered questionnaires (phase 1) and semi-structured, face-to-face interviews (phase 2) with members of the public, recruited in primary care centres, pharmacies and public places during October 2013 to February 2015. All questionnaire respondents reporting an ADR were invited to participate in Phase 2. Written informed consent was made before the start of the interview. Results: There were 414 (17.2%) of 2400 questionnaire respondents who had experienced an ADR, almost half (46%) of whom used their own experience to identify ADRs. Having a degree, having a severe ADR and consulting a physician increased respondent confidence in the association between medicine and suspected ADR. The majority (27) of the 30 interviewees indicated general agreement with patient reporting to regulatory authorities. Four main themes emerged covering reasons for reporting ADRs including expectations of health authorities, healthcare professionals and manufacturers, and helping other people. Awareness of direct reporting was low with a desire for a range of reporting methods. Conclusion: Results indicate support among the Thai general public of direct ADR reporting. Greater promotion of direct reporting by all healthcare professionals is required

Development and preliminary validation of an instrument to enable laypersons to assess suspected side effects from medicines

Purpose Research into causality assessment tools enabling patients to assess suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is limited. Supporting patients with tools could improve their confidence in discussions with health professionals and encourage reporting of suspected ADRs to regulators. This study describes development and preliminary validation of an instrument: Side Effect Patient ASsessment Tool (SE‐PAST). Methods SE‐PAST was developed from survey and interview data involving patients experiencing suspected ADRs. It included 10 statements enabling causality assessment, covering timing, additional information sources, and experiences, with four options: yes/no/don't know/not applicable. Scoring and weighting resulted in four categories of causal association: highly probable, probable, possible, unlikely. Validation involved obtaining feedback from 31 individuals experiencing an ADR. Further validation involved online distribution through patient support groups and comparison of reported symptoms to known ADRs. Results Validators found SE‐PAST easy to read (31), to understand (27), and to complete (29). A total of 294 respondents completed SE‐PAST online, with 98% completing eight or more causality assessment statements. Symptoms were categorised as highly probable (46; 16%), probable (80; 62%), possible (44; 15%), and unlikely (21; 7%). A total of 221 respondents identified one suspected medicine, with 95% of these reporting at least one symptom known to be an ADR. Of 227 providing feedback, 139 (61%) found SE‐PAST useful, 160 (71%) felt motivated to discuss their experience with a health professional, and 136 (60%) were encouraged to report to the regulator. Conclusion SE‐PAST was easily completed and understood by people experiencing suspected ADRs and could be useful in encouraging patient reporting to health professionals and agencies

Patients’ use of information about medicine side effects in relation to experiences of suspected adverse drug reactions

Background Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are common, and information about medicines is increasingly widely available to the public. However, relatively little work has explored how people use medicines information to help them assess symptoms that may be suspected ADRs. Objective Our objective was to determine how patients use patient information leaflets (PILs) or other medicines information sources and whether information use differs depending on experiences of suspected ADRs. Method This was a cross-sectional survey conducted in six National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in North West England involving medical in-patients taking at least two regular medicines prior to admission. The survey was administered via a questionnaire and covered use of the PIL and other medicines information sources, perceived knowledge about medicines risks/ADRs, experiences of suspected ADRs, plus demographic information. Results Of the 1,218 respondents to the survey, 18.8 % never read the PIL, whilst 6.5 % only do so if something unexpected happens. Educational level was related to perceived knowledge about medicines risks, but not to reading the PIL or seeking further information about medicines risks. Over half the respondents (56.0 %) never sought more information about possible side effects of medicines. A total of 57.2 % claimed they had experienced a suspected ADR. Of these 85.9 % were either very sure or fairly sure this was a reaction to a medicine. Over half of those experiencing a suspected ADR (53.8 %) had read the PIL, of whom 36.2 % did so before the suspected ADR occurred, the remainder afterwards. Reading the PIL helped 84.8 % of these respondents to decide they had experienced an ADR. Educational level, general knowledge of medicines risks and number of regular medicines used all increased the likelihood of experiencing an ADR. Conclusion More patients should be encouraged to read the PIL supplied with medicines. The results support the view that most patients feel knowledgeable about medicines risks and suspected ADRs and value information about side effects, but that reading about side effects in PILs or other medicines information sources does not lead to experiences of suspected ADRs

Evaluation of community pharmacists’ roles in screening and communication of risks about non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients

Aim: This study aimed to explore community pharmacists’ roles on screening for risk factors, providing safety information related NSAIDs to patients Background: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely dispensed without prescription from pharmacies in Thailand, while they are frequently reported as causing adverse events. Methods: Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to all accredited pharmacies in Thailand, inviting the main pharmacist in each pharmacy to participate in this study. Findings: Out of 406 questionnaires distributed, 159 were returned (39.2%). Almost all pharmacists claimed to engage in NSAID dispensing practice, but not all of them provided relevant good practice, such as, screening for risk factors (56.3%-95.5%), communication on ADRs (36.9%-63.2%) and ADR-management (58.9%-79.7%), History of gastrointestinal (GI) problems was frequently mentioned for screening, but many pharmacists did not screen for history of NSAID use (24.7%-35.5%), older age (45.2%-48.9%), concomitant drug (63.7%), and problems of cardiovascular (CV) (24.1%), renal (34.9%-43.3%), and liver systems (60.3%-61.0%). Male pharmacists were significantly less likely to inform users of non-selective NSAIDs about ADRs (Odd ratio (OR) 0.44), while provision of information about selective NSAID ADRs was higher among pharmacy owners (OR 2.28), pharmacies with more pharmacists (OR 3.18) and lower in pharmacies with assistants (OR 0.41). Screening for risk factors, and risk communication about NSAIDs were not generally conducted in Thai accredited community pharmacists, nor were NSAID complications fully communicated. Promoting of community pharmacists' roles in NSAID dispensing should give priority to improving, especially in high-risk patients for taking NSAIDs

Patients' willingness and ability to participate actively in the reduction of clinical errors: a systematic literature review

This systematic review identifies the factors that both support and deter patients from being willing and able to participate actively in reducing clinical errors. Specifically, we add to our understanding of the safety culture in healthcare by engaging with the call for more focus on the relational and subjective factors which enable patients' participation (Iedema, Jorm, & Lum, 2009; Ovretveit, 2009). A systematic search of six databases, ten journals and seven healthcare organisations' web sites resulted in the identification of 2714 studies of which 68 were included in the review. These studies investigated initiatives involving patients in safety or studies of patients' perspectives of being actively involved in the safety of their care. The factors explored varied considerably depending on the scope, setting and context of the study. Using thematic analysis we synthesized the data to build an explanation of why, when and how patients are likely to engage actively in helping to reduce clinical errors. The findings show that the main factors for engaging patients in their own safety can be summarised in four categories: illness; individual cognitive characteristics; the clinician-patient relationship; and organisational factors. We conclude that illness and patients' perceptions of their role and status as subordinate to that of clinicians are the most important barriers to their involvement in error reduction. In sum, patients' fear of being labelled "difficult" and a consequent desire for clinicians' approbation may cause them to assume a passive role as a means of actively protecting their personal safety

Knowledge and perceptions of the risks of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs among orthopaedic patients in Thailand

Background There is a high incidence of adverse effects from non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Thailand, but patients’ perceptions and knowledge of NSAID risks is unknown. Objective This study aims to assess patients’ perceptions and knowledge of NSAID risks and factors affecting them. Setting University hospital in North-East of Thailand. Method A Cross-sectional study conducted over 4 months, using a self-administered questionnaire. Patients prescribed NSAIDs for at least one month duration from orthopaedic clinic were recruited using systematic random sampling. Main outcome measure Patients’ perceptions on NSAID risks, knowledge on risk factors, and their associated factors. Results A total of 474 questionnaires were assessed. Overall perceptions of risks was low (scoring below five on a 0–10 visual analogue scale), with risks associated with the renal system scoring highest. Perceived risk of gastrointestinal problems differed between patients using non-selective and selective NSAIDs (3.47 ± 2.75 vs 2.06 ± 2.98; P < 0.001). Receiving side effect information from a health professional was associated with higher risk perception. Most patients (80 %) identified high doses, renal disease and gastrointestinal ulcer increased risks of NSAIDs, but fewer than half recognized that use in the elderly, multiple NSAID use, drinking, hypertension and cardiovascular disease also increased risk of adverse events. Having underlying diseases and receiving side effect information were associated with 1.6–2.0 fold increased knowledge of NSAID risks. Conclusion Perceptions and knowledge concerning NSAID risks was generally low in Thai patients, but higher in those who had received side effect information. Risk-related information should be widely provided, especially in high-risk patients