Adverse drug reaction monitoring by United Kingdom hospital pharmacy departments: impact of the introduction of “yellow card” reporting for pharmacists

Adverse drug reaction reporting in Australian hospitals

Objective

To determine the status of adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting in Australian hospitals. Method Postal questionnaire to all 299 directors of pharmacy in Australian hospitals.

Key findings

The response rate was 49.5%. Hospitals of different size were well represented: <100 beds (23%), 100–199 beds (35%) and 200–499 beds (30%). ADR policies were reported by 67% of pharmacy departments. In most hospitals, doctors or pharmacists were responsible for ADR submissions to the Australian ADR Advisory Committee (ADRAC). Follow-up action included reports to Drug and Therapeutics Committees (57%) and drug bulletins (37%). Advice on ADRs was forwarded to the patient, the general practitioner (GP) and the community pharmacist by 96%, 89% and 11% of hospitals. Methods of informing patients were verbal (91%), card (17%) or letter (13%). Methods used to notify GPs included discharge summary (70%), letter (26%) or via the patient (15%). Data from ADRAC indicated a median 2.5 (range 0–362) reports from participating hospitals in 2000. The median ADR reporting rate was 0.02% (range 0–1.09) of patient admissions. There was no association between ADR reporting rates and the existence of an ADR policy or a centralised ADR reporting system. There was an association between hospital ADR reporting rates and provision of feedback or a reward for ADR reporting (P<0.001).

Conclusions

Procedures or policies for ADR reporting are available in most Australian hospitals but this has no direct effect on ADR reporting rates. These findings suggest a gap between policy and implementation of ADR reporting. Strategies to improve ADR reporting could include improved feedback and electronic submissions to ADRAC from a centralised service.

Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions

The purpose of this review was to estimate the extent of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to spontaneous reporting systems and to investigate whether there are differences between different types of ADRs. A systematic literature search was carried out to identify studies providing a numerical estimate of under-reporting. Studies were included regardless of the methodology used or the setting, e.g. hospital versus general practice. Estimates of under-reporting were either extracted directly from the published study or calculated from the study data. These were expressed as the percentage of ADRs detected from intensive data collection that were not reported to the relevant local, regional or national spontaneous reporting systems. The median under-reporting rate was calculated across all studies and within subcategories of studies using different methods or settings. In total, 37 studies using a wide variety of surveillance methods were identified from 12 countries. These generated 43 numerical estimates of under-reporting. The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82-98%). There was no significant difference in the median under-reporting rates calculated for general practice and hospital-based studies. Five of the ten general practice studies provided evidence of a higher median under-reporting rate for all ADRs compared with more serious or severe ADRs (95% and 80%, respectively). In comparison, for five of the eight hospital-based studies the median under-reporting rate for more serious or severe ADRs remained high (95%). The median under-reporting rate was lower for 19 studies investigating specific serious/severe ADR-drug combinations but was still high at 85%. This systematic review provides evidence of significant and widespread under-reporting of ADRs to spontaneous reporting systems including serious or severe ADRs. Further work is required to assess the impact of under-reporting on public health decisions and the effects of initiatives to improve reporting such as internet reporting, pharmacist/nurse reporting and direct patient reporting as well as improved education and training of healthcare professionals.