Background: Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in hospitals is scarce and several obstacles to such reporting have been identified previously.
Objective: To assess the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention based on healthcare management agreements for improving spontaneous reporting of ADRs by physicians in a hospital setting.
Methods: In 2003, the spontaneous reporting of ADRs was included as one of the objectives of hospital physicians at the Vall d’Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, within the context of management agreements between clinical services and hospital managers. A continuous intervention related to these management agreements, including periodic educational meetings and economic incentives, was then initiated. We carried out an ecological time series analysis and assessed the change in the total number of spontaneous reports of ADRs, and the number of serious ADRs, unexpected ADRs, and ADRs associated with new drugs between a period previous to the intervention (from 1998 to 2002) and the period during the intervention (from 2003 to 2005). A time series analysis with ARIMA (Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average) models was performed.
Results: The median number of reported ADRs per year increased from 40 (range 23–55) in the first period to 224 (range 98–248) in the second period. In the first period, the monthly number of reported ADRs was stable (3.47 per month; 95% CI 1.90, 5.03), but in the second period the number increased progressively (increase of 0.74 per month; 95% CI 0.62, 0.86). In the second period, the proportion of reported serious ADRs increased nearly 2-fold (63.1% vs 32.5% in the first period). The absolute number of previously unknown or poorly known ADRs increased 4-fold in the second period (54 vs 13 in the first period). There was also an increase in the absolute number of suspected pharmacological exposures to new drugs (97 vs 28) and in the number of different new drugs suspected of causing ADRs (50 vs 19).
Conclusion: A continuous intervention based on healthcare management agreements with economic incentives and educational activities is associated with a quantitative and qualitative improvement of spontaneous reporting of ADRs by hospital physicians.
Economic Incentive Spontaneous Reporting ARIMA Model Hospital Physician Multifaceted Intervention
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors would like to thank the hospital physicians who participated in this study for their collaboration. No sources of funding were used to assist in the development of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.
Edwards R, Olsson S, Lindquist M, et al. Global drug surveillance: the WHO programme for international drug monitoring. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. Chichester: Wiley, 2005: 161–83Google Scholar
McGettigan P, Feely J. ADR reporting: opinions and attitudes of medical practitioners in Ireland. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1995; 4: 355–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belton KJ. Attitude survey of adverse drug-reaction reporting by health care professionals across the European Union: the European Pharmacovigilance Research Group. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 52: 423–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eland IA, Belton KJ, van Grootheest AC, et al. Attitudinal survey of voluntary reporting of ADR. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 623–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosentino M, Leoni O, Oria C, et al. Hospital-based survey of doctor’s attitudes to adverse drug reactions and perception of drug-related risk for adverse reaction occurrence. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1999; 8: S27–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäckström M, Mjorndal T, Dahlqvist R, et al. Attitudes to reporting ADR in northern Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 729–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueiras A, Tato F, Fontainas J, et al. Physicians’ attitudes towards voluntary reporting of adverse drug events. J Eval Clin Pract 2001; 7: 347–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasford J, Goettler M, Munter KH, et al. Physicians’ knowledge and attitudes regarding the spontaneous reporting system for ADR. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 945–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallano A, Cereza G, Pedrós C, et al. Obstacles and solutions for spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in the hospital. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 60: 653–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polónia J, et al. Physicians’ attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting: a case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf 2005; 28: 825–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee S, Lyle N, Ghosh S. A survey of the knowledge, attitude and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting by clinicians in Eastern India. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 641–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimelblatt BJ, Young SH, Heywood PM, et al. Improved reporting of adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1988; 45: 1086–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fincham J. A statewide program to stimulate reporting of adverse drug reactions. J Pharm Pract 1989; 2: 239–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott HD, Thacher-Renshaw A, Rosenbaum SE, et al. Physician reporting of adverse drug reactions: results of the Rhode Island Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Project. JAMA 1990; 263: 1785–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nazario M, Feliu JF, Rivera GC. Adverse drug reactions: the San Juan Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center experience. Hosp Pharm 1994; 29: 244–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
McGettigan P, Golden J, Conroy RM, et al. Reporting of adverse drug reactions by hospital doctors and the response to intervention. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 44: 98–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueiras A, Herdeiro MT, Polonia J, et al. An educational intervention to improve physician reporting of adverse drug reactions: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 1086–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracchi RCG, Houghton J, Woods FJ, et al. A distance-learning programme in pharmacovigilance linked to educational credits is associated with improved reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions via the UK yellow card scheme. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 60: 221–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castel JM, Figueras A, Pedrós C, et al. Stimulating adverse drug reaction reporting: effect of a drug safety bulletin and of including yellow cards in prescription pads. Drug Saf 2003; 26: 1049–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feely J, Moriarty S, O’Connor P. Stimulating reporting of adverse drug reaction by using a fee. BMJ 1990; 300: 22–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäckström A, Mjörndal T. A small economic inducement to stimulate increased reporting of adverse drug reactions: a way of dealing with an old problem? Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 381–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armadans L, Carné X, Laporte JR. Detection of adverse reactions to drugs from the hospital admission diagnosis: method and results. Med Clin (Barc) 1988; 91: 124–7Google Scholar
Capellà D, Laporte J-R. La notificación espontánea de reacciones adversas a medicamentos. In: Laporte J-R, Tognoni G, editors. Principios de epidemiología del medicamento. 2nd ed. Barcelona: Masson-Salvat, 1993: 147–70Google Scholar
Commission Directive 2000/38/EC of 5 June 2000 amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council Directive 75/ 319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products. Official Journal of the European Communities 10.6.2000: L139/28-L139/30 [online]. Available from URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:139:0028:0030:EN:PDF [Accessed 2008 Oct 22]
Meyboom RHB, Royer RJ. Causality classification at pharmacovigilance centres in the European Community. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1992; 1: 87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar