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

A prescrição médica eletrônica em um hospital universitário: falhas de redação e opiniões de usuários La prescripción médica electrónica en un hospital universitario: fallas en la redacción y opinión de los usuarios Computerized physician order entry in a university hospital: writing failure and users´ opinions

Este estudo analisou as falhas de redação da prescrição médica eletrônica e opiniões dos usuários acerca das suas vantagens e desvantagens. Foram analisadas 1.351 prescrições médicas de um hospital universitário e entrevistados 84 profissionais da área da enfermagem e medicina. Os resultados indicaram que 17,7% das prescrições apresentavam rasuras, em 16,8 % havia medicamentos suspensos, em 28,2% havia informações que podiam deixar os profissionais em dúvida e em 25% havia medicamentos prescritos manualmente. Os profissionais indicaram as seguintes vantagens: facilidade de leitura dos dados e rapidez com que a prescrição é feita e liberada e como desvantagens: repetição de prescrições de dias anteriores sem revisão e informações digitadas de forma incorreta. Conclui-se que apesar de ser uma estratégia importante na redução de erros, é preciso revisão desse sistema e educação dos profissionais na sua utilização.<br>Este estudio tuvo por objetivo identificar las fallas en la redacción de la prescripción médica electrónica y las opiniones de los usuarios sobre sus ventajas y desventajas. Fueron analizadas 1351 prescripciones médicas de un hospital universitario y entrevistados 84 profesionales de las áreas de enfermería y medicina. Los resultados indicaron que el 17,7% de las prescripciones presentaban rasgaduras, en el 16,8% habían medicamentos suspendidos, en el 28,2% habían informaciones que podían dejar a los profesionales en duda y en el 25% habían medicamentos prescriptos manualmente. Los profesionales indicaron algunas ventajas como: facilidad para leer los datos y rapidez con que la prescripción es realizada y liberada, entre otras, y como desventajas: repetición de prescripciones de días anteriores sin revisión e informaciones digitadas incorrectamente. Se concluye que a pesar de ser una estrategia importante para la reducción de errores, es necesario una revisión de ese sistema y educación de los profesionales en su utilización.<br>This study analyzed the writing failure of the computerized physician order entry system and its advantages and disadvantages according to users. At a university hospital 1,351 physician orders were analyzed and 84 nursing and medical professionals were interviewed. The results showed that 17.7% of the orders presented erasures, medication had been suspended in 16.8%, in 28.2% there was dubious or misleading information and in 25% medication had been prescribed manually. The professionals indicated advantages such as: ease of data reading and the quickness with which the order is entered and released, among others. They also reported disadvantages such as the repetition of orders from previous days without a review and incorrectly typed information. Therefore, it is concluded that, despite representing an important strategy for error reduction, this system must be overhauled and professionals must be trained to use it

Effects of Limited English Proficiency and Physician Language on Health Care Comprehension

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of limited English proficiency on medical comprehension in the presence and absence of language-concordant physicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A telephone survey of 1,200 Californians was conducted in 11 languages. The survey included 4 items on medical comprehension: problems understanding a medical situation, confusion about medication use, trouble understanding labels on medication, and bad reactions to medications. Respondents were also asked about English proficiency and whether their physicians spoke their native language. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed the relationship between English proficiency and medical comprehension using multivariate logistic regression. We also performed a stratified analysis to explore the effect of physician language concordance on comprehension. Forty-nine percent of the 1,200 respondents were defined as limited English proficient (LEP). Limited English-proficient respondents were more likely than English-proficient respondents to report problems understanding a medical situation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.2/confidence interval [CI] 2.1, 4.8), trouble understanding labels (AOR 1.5/CI 1.0, 2.3), and bad reactions (AOR 2.3/CI 1.3, 4.4). Among respondents with language-concordant physicians, LEP respondents were more likely to have problems understanding a medical situation (AOR 2.2/CI 1.2, 3.9). Among those with language-discordant physicians, LEP respondents were more likely to report problems understanding a medical situation (AOR 9.4/CI 3.7, 23.8), trouble understanding labels (AOR 4.2/CI 1.7, 10.3), and bad medication reactions (AOR 4.1/CI 1.2, 14.7). CONCLUSION: Limited English proficiency is a barrier to medical comprehension and increases the risk of adverse medication reactions. Access to language-concordant physicians substantially mitigates but does not eliminate language barriers