| Title |
A comprehensive intervention for adverse drug reactions identification and reporting in a Pediatric Emergency Department
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-015-0209-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Olga Morales Ríos, Luis Jasso Gutiérrez, Juan O. Talavera, Martha María Téllez-Rojo, Víctor Olivar López, Juan Garduño Espinosa, Onofre Muñoz Hernández |
| Abstract |
Background Physicians identify from 45.7 to 96.2 % of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) in their patients, with under-reporting ranging from 6 to 100 %. In order to improve ADR reporting, several interventions have been evaluated in different studies, but not with regard to ADR identification. In addition, it is not known whether some patient characteristics might influence on ADR identification and reporting by physicians. Objectives (a) To assess the effectiveness of a comprehensive intervention directed to Emergency Department physicians and coordinated by a pharmacist in a tertiary care pediatric hospital on ADR identification and reporting. (b) To assess if some of the children's characteristics might influence on ADR identification and reporting. Setting The Emergency Department of the Hospital Infantil de México "Federico Gómez", which is a national pediatric institute of health in México. Methods A Quasi-experimental, pre-post test trial was designed. During the intervention, the pharmacist gave talks on Pharmacovigilance and on the program for electronic capture of data, took part in patient visits, left reminders, improved accessibility to ADR report format and performed feedback activities. To classify and quantify correctly identified ADRs and ADRs reported to the Institutional Pharmacovigilance Center (IPC), 1136 clinical records were reviewed. The models were adjusted for patient variables. Main outcome measures Total ADRs, ADRs correctly identified by physicians, ADRs reported to the IPC by physicians. Results Before the intervention, 97 % of ADRs were correctly identified and 6.1 % reported by physicians. During the intervention, 99.6 % were correctly identified and 41.2 % were reported, and after the intervention, 99.6 and 41.7 %, respectively. Identification during the intervention showed a sevenfold increase with regard to preintervention and was maintained post-intervention. ADR reporting during the intervention showed a 14-fold increase with regard to pre-intervention and was maintained during post-intervention. Conclusion Physicians do identify ADRs, but fail to report them. The intervention increased ADR correct identification and reporting. The effect was maintained after the intervention. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 24 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#16,631,595
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#927
of 1,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,885
of 290,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#14
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.