Patient Reasoning: Patients' and Care Partners' Perceptions of Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Care

OBJECTIVES

In the context of validating a measure of patient report specific to diagnostic accuracy in emergency department or urgent care, this study investigates patients' and care partners' perceptions of diagnoses as accurate and explores variations in how they reason while they assess accuracy.

METHODS

In February 2022, we surveyed a national panel of adults who had an emergency department or urgent care visit in the past month to test a patient-reported measure. As part of the survey validation, we asked for free-text responses about why the respondents indicated their (dis)agreement with 2 statements comprising patient-reported diagnostic accuracy: 1) the explanation they received of the health problem was true and 2) the explanation described what to expect of the health problem. Those paired free-text responses were qualitatively analyzed according to themes created inductively.

RESULTS

A total of 1,116 patients and care partners provided 982 responses coded into 10 themes, which were further grouped into 3 reasoning types. Almost one-third (32%) of respondents used only corroborative reasoning in assessing the accuracy of the health problem explanation (alignment of the explanation with either test results, patients' subsequent health trajectory, their medical knowledge, symptoms, or another doctor's opinion), 26% used only perception-based reasoning (perceptions of diagnostic process, uncertainty around the explanation received, or clinical team's attitudes), and 27% used both types of reasoning. The remaining 15% used general beliefs or nonexplicated logic (used only about accurate diagnoses) and combinations of general reasoning with perception-based and corroborative.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and care partners used multifaceted reasoning in their assessment of diagnostic accuracy.

IMPLICATIONS

As health care shifts toward meaningful diagnostic co-production and shared decision making, in-depth understanding of variations in patient reasoning and mental models informs use in clinical practice.

HIGHLIGHTS

An analysis of 982 responses examined how patients and care partners reason about the accuracy of diagnoses they received in emergency or urgent care.In reasoning, people used their perception of the process and whether the diagnosis matched other factual information they have.We introduce "patient reasoning" in the diagnostic measurement context as an area of further research to inform diagnostic shared decision making and co-production of health.

Indirect and Direct 65+ Patient Reporting of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug-Induced Adverse Drug Reactions as a Source of Information on Polypharmacy and Polypharmacy-Related Risk

Background and Objectives: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which have anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties, are commonly used in the treatment of various, particularly frequent, as well as chronic, conditions in older patients. Due to common polypragmasia in these patients and a high risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug interactions, pain management poses a therapeutic challenge. This study describes the importance of ADR reports in the identification of polypharmacy and the ensuing interactions. Materials and Methods: Both healthcare professionals (HPs) and non-healthcare professionals (non-HPs) reports collected in the EudraVigilance database of NSAIDs, including most commonly co-reported medications and reported reactions, were analysed and differences between HPs and non-HPs reports were identified. Results: In the analysed period and group, non-HPs reported more reactions but indicated fewer drugs as suspect or concomitant. The outcomes of our analysis indicate more HP engagement and more detailed reports of serious ADRs when compared to non-serious individual case safety reports (ICSRs) by non-HPs, which appeared more detailed. Such reactions as kidney failure and increased risk of bleeding are known adverse reactions to NSAIDs and common symptoms of their interactions, which were described in the available literature. They were much more frequently reported by HPs than by non-HPs. Non-HPs more frequently reported reactions that may have been considered less significant by HPs. Conclusions: The differences between healthcare professionals' (HPs) and non-healthcare professionals' (non-HPs) reports may result from the fact that the reports from patients and their caregivers require a professional medical diagnosis based on symptoms described by the patient or additional diagnostic tests. This means that when appropriately classified, medically verified, and statistically analysed, the data may provide new evidence for the risks of medication use or drug interactions.

Immediate side effects of Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine: A nationwide survey of vaccinated people in Israel, December 2020 to March 2021

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccine safety is of major interest worldwide, since there is no prior experience with it. Israel was one of the first countries to widely use the Comirnaty vaccine.AimWe aimed to assess the vaccine's short-term side effects directly from a large population and to predict influencing factors for self-reporting side effects.MethodsIn a retrospective cohort study, we investigated self-reported systemic vaccine side-effects using electronic surveys sent to vaccinated individuals between 20 December 2020 and 11 March 2021, within 3 days following administration of the first and second dose. We determined predictors for reporting systemic side effects by logistic regression.ResultsA total of 1,213,693 patients received at least one vaccine dose and 301,537 (24.8%) answered at least one survey. Among them, 68,162 (30.4%) and 89,854 (59.9%) individuals filled the first and the second dose surveys, respectively, and reported one or more side effects. Most common side effects were fatigue, headache and myalgia. Several respondents reported facial paraesthesia after first and second dose, respectively (n = 1,675; 0.7% and n = 1,601; 1.1%). Individuals younger than 40 years and women reported side effects more frequently than others, but pregnant women reported less. Pregnancy was a weak predictor for reporting any side effect in general and in particular fatigue, myalgia, headache, chills and fever.ConclusionsWe found further support for minor short-term side effects, within 3 days of receiving the Comirnaty vaccine. These findings from vaccine recipients in general and pregnant women in particular can improve vaccine acceptance.

The Importance of Direct Patient Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in the Safety Monitoring Process

All medicinal products authorized in the European Union are subjects of constant drug-safety monitoring processes. It is organized in a pharmacovigilance system that is designed to protect human health and life by the detection, analysis and prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and other drug-related problems. The main role of the aforementioned system is to collect and analyze adverse drug reaction reports. Legislation introduced several years ago allowed patients, their legal representatives and caregivers to report adverse drug reactions, which caused them to be an additional source of safety data. This paper presents the analysis of EudraVigilance data related to adverse drug reactions provided by patients, their representatives, as well as those obtained from healthcare professionals related to medicines which belong to M01A anti-inflammatory and antirheumatic products, a non-steroid group. The objective of the study was to identify the changes in the number and structure of adverse reaction reporting after the introduction of pharmacovigilance (PV) obligations in EU. A review of scientific literature was also conducted to assess the differences in adverse reactions reported by patients or their representatives and by healthcare professionals. We also identified other factors which, according to literature review, influenced the number of adverse reaction reports provided by patients. Analysis of data collected from the EudraVigilance showed that from 2011 to 2013 the number of reports made by patients and their caregivers increased by approx. 24 percentage points, and then, from 2014, it constituted around 30% of the total of reported reactions every year, so patient reporting is an important part of pharmacovigilance system and a source of drugs’ safety information throughout their use in healthcare practice. Additionally, there was no interrelationship between the seriousness of reported adverse reactions and the overall number of patient reports when compared to reports form healthcare professionals.

Inflammatory bowel disease patients provide reliable self-reported medical information: A multicentre prospective pharmacovigilance monitoring system

Purpose

To assess the agreement between patient‐reported and health care provider‐reported medical information in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Methods

This multicentre, prospective, event monitoring study enrolled adult Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients treated with a biological in four medical centers in the Netherlands. At two‐monthly intervals, patients completed questionnaires on biological use, combination therapy and indication. The patient‐reported information was compared with their electronic health records (EHRs) and analysed for percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa. A reference population from a prospective IBD registry was used to assess the representativeness of the study population.

Results

In total, 182 patients (female 50.5%, mean age 42.2 years, CD 76.9%) were included in the analysis. At baseline, 51.0% of the patients were prescribed an immunomodulator (43.9% thiopurines, 7.1% methotrexate), and patients were prescribed biologicals as follows: 59.3% infliximab, 30.2% adalimumab, 9.3% vedolizumab, and 1.1% ustekinumab. Agreement on patient‐reported indication and biological use was almost perfect (κ = 0.878 and κ = 1.000, respectively); substantial for combination therapy (κ = 0.672). Gender, age, type of IBD, biological use and combination therapy were comparable with the reference population.

Conclusion

Systematic patient‐reporting by questionnaires was reliable in retrieving indication and treatment specific information from IBD patients. These results indicate that the use of patient‐reporting outcomes in daily IBD practice can ensure reliable information collection.

Patient Drug Safety Reporting: Diabetes Patients' Perceptions of Drug Safety and How to Improve Reporting of Adverse Events and Product Complaints

BACKGROUND

Global health care manufacturer Novo Nordisk commissioned research regarding awareness of drug safety department activities and potential to increase patient feedback. Objectives were to examine patients' knowledge of pharmaceutical manufacturers' responsibilities and efforts regarding drug safety, their perceptions and experiences related to these efforts, and how these factors influence their thoughts and behaviors. Data were collected before and after respondents read a description of a drug safety department and its practices.

METHODS

We conducted quantitative survey research across 608 health care consumers receiving treatment for diabetes in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, and Italy. This research validated initial, exploratory qualitative research (across 40 comparable consumers from the same countries) which served to guide design of the larger study.

RESULTS

Before reading a drug safety department description, 55% of respondents were unaware these departments collect safety information on products and patients. After reading the description, 34% reported the department does more than they expected to ensure drug safety, and 56% reported "more confidence" in the industry as a whole. Further, 66% reported themselves more likely to report an adverse event or product complaint, and 60% reported that they were more likely to contact a drug safety department with questions. The most preferred communication methods were websites/online forums (39%), email (27%), and telephone (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

Learning about drug safety departments elevates consumers' confidence in manufacturers' safety efforts and establishes potential for patients to engage in increased self-monitoring and reporting. Study results reveal potentially actionable insights for the industry across patient and physician programs and communications.

Does patient reporting lead to earlier detection of drug safety signals? A retrospective comparison of time to reporting between patients and healthcare professionals in a global database

AIMS

To explore if there is a difference between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in time to reporting drug-adverse drug reaction (ADR) associations that led to drug safety signals.

METHODS

This was a retrospective comparison of time to reporting selected drug-ADR associations which led to drug safety signals between patients and HCPs. ADR reports were selected from the World Health Organization Global database of individual case safety reports, VigiBase. Reports were selected based on drug-ADR associations of actual drug safety signals. Primary outcome was the difference in time to reporting between patients and HCPs. The date of the first report for each individual signal was used as time zero. The difference in time between the date of the reports and time zero was calculated. Statistical differences in timing were analysed on the corresponding survival curves using a Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

In total, 2822 reports were included, of which 52.7% were patient reports, with a median of 25% for all included signals. For all signals, median time to signal detection was 10.4 years. Overall, HCPs reported earlier than patients: median 7.0 vs. 8.3 years (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients contributed a large proportion of reports on drug-ADR pairs that eventually became signals. HCPs reported 1.3 year earlier than patients. These findings strengthen the evidence on the value of patient reporting in signal detection and highlight an opportunity to encourage patients to report suspected ADRs even earlier in the future.

PReSaFe: A model of barriers and facilitators to patients providing feedback on experiences of safety

Objective

The importance of involving patients in reporting on safety is increasingly recognized. Whilst studies have identified barriers to clinician incident reporting, few have explored barriers and facilitators to patient reporting of safety experiences. This paper explores patient perspectives on providing feedback on safety experiences.

Design/Participants

Patients (n=28) were invited to take part in semi‐structured interviews when given a survey about their experiences of safety following hospital discharge. Transcripts were thematically analysed using NVivo10.

Setting

Patients were recruited from four hospitals in the UK.

Results

Three themes were identified as barriers and facilitators to patient involvement in providing feedback on their safety experiences. The first, cognitive‐cultural, found that whilst safety was a priority for most, some felt the term was not relevant to them because safety was the “default” position, and/or because safety could not be disentangled from the overall experience of care. The structural‐procedural theme indicated that reporting was facilitated when patients saw the process as straightforward, but that disinclination or perceived inability to provide feedback was a barrier. Finally, learning and change illustrated that perception of the impact of feedback could facilitate or inhibit reporting.

Conclusions

When collecting patient feedback on experiences of safety, it is important to consider what may help or hinder this process, beyond the process alone. We present a staged model of prerequisite barriers and facilitators and hypothesize that each stage needs to be achieved for patients to provide feedback on safety experiences. Implications for collecting meaningful data on patients' safety experiences are considered.

Feedback for patients reporting adverse drug reactions; satisfaction and expectations

OBJECTIVE

Due to the rising number of patient reports in pharmacovigilance, the manner in which feedback is provided to patients is an element to be considered. The objective is to explore the satisfaction of patients towards personalized and general feedback in response to their reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

METHODS

Patients who reported an ADR to the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Centre for the first time in the period between October 2012 and April 2013 were included. Reporters received personalized feedback or a general acknowledgement letter. Satisfaction towards the received feedback, expressed on a 5-point Likert scale (1 very good to 5 very poor), was studied using a web-based questionnaire. Data were analyzed using Pearson Chi-square test and linear regression analysis. Statistical significance was based on p < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 471 patient-reporters were contacted with a total response of 52.5%. Respondents of both groups were satisfied with the received feedback, average score 2 (good). Respondents of the personalized feedback-group were however more satisfied score 2.0 versus 2.5 (p < 0.001) and considered the feedback more clear and useful compared with respondents of the acknowledgement letter-group, respectively score 1.6 versus 1.7 (p = 0.01) and score 2.1 versus 2.5 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients reporting ADRs are satisfied with feedback received from the pharmacovigilance centre, whether this is a personalized feedback or a general acknowledgment letter. They find it clear, useful and it meets their expectation. Although differences were found between the two types of feedback, these differences did not indicate dissatisfaction towards the received feedback.

Adverse drug reaction reports of patients and healthcare professionals-differences in reported information

PURPOSE

This study aims to explore the differences in reported information between adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports of patient and healthcare professionals (HCPs), and, in addition, to explore possible correlation between the reported elements of information.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared the reported information between 200 ADR reports of patients and HCPs. Reports were rendered anonymous and scored for the presence or absence of predefined elements of information. These elements can be objective (e.g. start date of the ADR) or subjective (e.g. the impact or severity of the ADR). A two-sided Pearson's Chi-square test was used to detect statistically significant differences in the reported information. A Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple comparisons. Correlation between the elements of information was explored using categorical principal components analysis (CATPCA).

RESULTS

Overall, HCPs had a higher score for the presence of objective and patients for subjective elements of information. Elements that were statistically significant more often reported by patients are the impact of the ADR and the patient's weight and height. HCPs statistically significant more often reported the medical history and the route of administration of the drug. CATPCA showed four clusters of elements of information that have fair correlation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the differences in reported information between ADR reports of patients and HCPs. Patient reports are more focused on patient-related information and the impact of the reported ADRs, whereas reports from HCPs provide more clinically related information.

Important information regarding reporting of adverse drug reactions: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To give an overview of the views of different types of reporters (patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs)) and assessors of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) on what they consider important information regarding an ADR report.

METHODS

A semi-structured interview was conducted among reporters and assessors of ADRs in the Netherlands. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was used on the data. All transcripts were coded individually by two researchers. A list was drafted of all elements of information mentioned during the interviews.

KEY FINDINGS

In total 16 interviews were conducted. Elements of information that were explicitly brought up during the interviews were the impact of the ADR on the patient's daily life and information regarding causality. Furthermore, the correctness of reported information was found important by assessors of ADRs. Generally, patient reporting was seen as a very positive development for pharmacovigilance.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported that the severity of ADRs and their impact on daily life were important subjects. In the interviews with HCPs, either reporters or assessors, the focus was mainly on causality. The correctness of the given information is considered by ADR assessors to be very important. Regarding patient reporting the overall view was positive. Because HCPs and patients have different views regarding ADR reporting, in daily practice it is important to receive reports from both groups to assess the true nature of the ADR.

Views of British community pharmacists on direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs)

PURPOSE

To survey British community pharmacists' views and practices concerning direct patient reporting of ADRs.

METHODS

Cross-sectional postal survey of community pharmacists in Britain

RESULTS

Of 1096 questionnaires distributed, 297 usable responses were obtained, (27.1%). Respondents' estimates of the frequency of patients reporting a suspected ADR to them had a median of 1.0 per month. Almost a fifth of respondents (19.6%) do not specifically ask patients about ADRs, and 38.7% do not encourage patients to report. Only 18.5% displayed a poster promoting the YC Scheme in their pharmacy, but 57.9% claimed to have patient YCs available. A quarter (24.9%) of respondents considered that ADR reporting should be restricted to health professionals and 14.4% considered that patients were not at all capable of identifying ADRs.

CONCLUSIONS

The low response rate and overall results suggest that British community pharmacists may lack interest in and do not promote direct patient reporting. Increased awareness of the benefits and mechanisms of patient reporting may be required to ensure that pharmacists can provide the necessary support to facilitate patient reporting.