Advertisement

Underreporting of Adverse Drug Reactions: Attitudes of Irish doctors

  • D. Williams
  • J. Feely
Article

Summary

Despite the fundamental importance of reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions, less than 10 per cent of serious adverse drug reactions are reported. To further enhance our understanding of doctors’ knowledge and attitudes to the current Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) reporting scheme we surveyed 158 doctors, including some 106 general practitioners and 23 hospital-based doctors. The response rate was 39.5 per cent. The majority had experience of reporting an ADR. Seriousness of the ADR appears to be the most important reason for reporting. Uncertainty that the adverse drug reaction was definitely caused by the medicine, that the adverse drug reaction was too trivial to report or that it was too well known a reaction to report are common reasons for not reporting. Of concern 84 per cent of doctors are unaware of the criteria of the National Drug Regulatory Agency indicating the need for additional education and information in this regard.

We also found considerable disagreements in doctors’ understanding of the meaning of common, occasional, rare, or very rare as applied to ADRs.

Keywords

Adverse Drug Reaction Terfenadine Mibefradil Reporting Scheme Hospital Doctor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Pirmohamed, M., Breckenridge, A., Kitteringham, N., Park, B. Fortnightly review. Adverse drug reactions. BMJ 1998; 316: 1295–1298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Irish Medicines Board: Annual Report and Accounts 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    General Medical Services (payments) Board Annual Report 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feely, J., Moriarty, S., O’Connor, P. Stimulating reporting of adverse drug reactions by using a fee. BMJ 1990; 300: 22–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belton, K. J., Lewis, S. C., Payne, S., Rawlins, M. D., Wood, S. M. Attitudinal survey of adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1995; 39: 223–226.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McGettigan, P., Feely, J. Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting: Opinions and Attitudes of Medical Practitioners in Ireland. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 1995; 4: 355–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reporting adverse reactions Irish Medicines Board Drug Safety Newsletter — issue No. 3. p4. Jan. 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irish Medicines Board. Drug Safety Newsletter. October 1997: 5th edition.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wood, A., Stein, C., Woosley, R. Making Medicines Safer — The Need for an independent Drug Safety Board. New England Journal of Medicine, 1998: 339.25; 1851–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGettigan, P., Golden, J., Conroy, R., Arthur, N., Feely, J. Reporting of adverse drug reactions by hospital doctors and the response to intervention. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1997; 44: 98–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall, M., McCormack, P., Arthurs, N., Feely, J. The spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions by nurses. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1995; 40: 173–175.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Williams
    • 1
  • J. Feely
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Trinity Centre for Health SciencesSt. James’s HospitalDublin 8

Personalised recommendations