Disponibilité de l'information médicale requise pour la déclaration d'une réaction indésirable médicamenteuse à Santé Canada: une étude exploratoire

Background

Since 2019, health care facilities have been required to report serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to Health Canada.

Objectives

To describe the availability of information required for reporting an ADR to Health Canada from medical records using 2 methods (systematic and in-depth reporting) and to compare the time required to find the information.

Methods

This retrospective and prospective descriptive study involved serious ADRs occurring in a mother-child centre and reported between April 1, 2021, and March 31, 2023. The variables needed to complete the Health Canada reporting form were collected using 2 distinct methods.

Results

Among the 270 serious ADRs reported retrospectively, 140 were sampled. The average availability of variables was 82.3% (standard deviation [SD] 11.3%), with average data collection time of 50 (SD 25) minutes. For the prospective part of the study, 15 serious ADRs were studied. The availability of variables was 82.8% (SD 6.9%) and 91.9% (SD 7.8%), for systematic and in-depth reporting, respectively, with data collection times of 44 (SD 17) and 130 (SD 33) minutes, respectively.

Conclusions

The challenge of finding, in patients' medical records, all of the information needed for reporting an ADR to Health Canada required an in-depth approach. However, the in-depth method took 3 times as long as a search limited to places in the record where specific information should be found. To improve record keeping, additional training for clinicians could be considered and, potentially, development of a computerized clinical record that includes a dedicated form for documenting ADRs.

Training workload in the investigational drug service of a university hospital center

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

Training represents a considerable portion of research activities and is vastly different for each clinical trial. This variation is partially explained by the lack of detailed regulations surrounding training procedures, which hinders the ability of investigational drug service (IDS) staff to plan their workload. The aim of this study was to quantify the workload associated with trial-specific training of IDS staff. The secondary aim was to identify the factors associated with training complexity.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out in the IDS of a mother and child university hospital. Trial-specific documents on which the pharmacy staff was trained were analyzed. Workload was calculated by measuring reading time. The readability of each document was determined by the Flesch Reading Ease score. The complexity of the trials was established using the scoring method of Calvin-Lamas et al. The influence of the following factors on training was assessed by analysis of variance: sponsor type, research phase, and research focus by medical specialty.

RESULTS

A total of 93 clinical trials and 433 documents were included. Investigator's brochures were the longest (a mean [SD] of 107 [46] pages; P < 0.0001) and most difficult documents to read (mean [SD] readability score, 25.5 [4.4]; P < 0.0001). Trials with industry sponsors required a significantly longer overall reading time (mean [SD], 12.26 [6.72] hours; P < 0.0001). On average, a mean (SD) of 9.42 [7.16] hours of reading were necessary to train one employee for a clinical trial.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to document reading time necessary for training of IDS staff. The training workload varied by sponsor type, while the research phase and medical specialty had little impact. IDS units would benefit from a tool that could identify complex trials.