Archive \ Volume.4 2014 Issue 3

Knowledge assessment in adverse drug reactions and reporting

Sivanandy Palanisamy , Kottur S. G. Arul Kumaran , Aiyalu Rajasekaran
Abstract

Objectives: In India, adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring activity is in infancy. This study was conducted to determine the pattern and extent of occurrence of ADRs in the hospital, to analyze the ADRs reporting behaviors in healthcare professionals (HCPs), to analyze the knowledge about ADRs in HCP, to analyze and compare the ADRs reported by HCP and to analyze the barriers involved in nonreporting of suspected ADRs. Materials and Methods: The study was carried out at Kovai Medical Center and Hospital (KMCH). A questionnaire containing 19 questions was distributed to the teaching faculties of pharmacy college, physicians, nurses, and students of the study setting. Results and Conclusion: The response rate of faculties, physicians, nurses, and students for the questionnaire in phase‑I were found to be 66.67%, 40.00%, 66.67%, and 73.33%, respectively. But the response rates remarkably increased in phase‑II when compared with phase‑I study viz., 100% from faculties and students, 93.33% from physicians, and 86.67% from nurses. Almost all the participants said that ADR monitoring is done in their institution. Majority of the participants said that ADR should be reported if it causes both inconvenience and death to the patients. In our study, physicians (93%) knew the objectives of ADR monitoring very well in phase‑II, when compared with phase‑I study (75%), which was followed by faculties (83%), nurses (77%), and students (73%). Spontaneous reporting of ADRs is denoted by all faculties, 93% physician, 80% students, and 77% nurses in phase‑II study. All participants in the phase‑II survey knew any one method to monitor ADRs but in phase‑I, 10% nurses and 9% students did not know about any method of monitoring ADR. Lack of knowledge about ADR reporting center is the mainstay in under‑reporting or nonreporting of observed ADRs noted by only 6.67% of faculties, 19.23% nurses, and 10% students. The reason for underreporting was very much reduced in phase‑II than in phase‑I.