Premium
Adverse Drug Reactions during Hospital Stay: Evaluation of a Model for Informing Patients
Author(s) -
Graudins Linda V,
Hopper Ingrid,
Treseder Rowena J,
Lord Julie AV,
Dooley Michael J
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of pharmacy practice and research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.222
H-Index - 22
eISSN - 2055-2335
pISSN - 1445-937X
DOI - 10.1002/j.2055-2335.2012.tb00142.x
Subject(s) - medicine , adverse drug reaction , pharmacist , drug reaction , family medicine , emergency medicine , medical emergency , drug , pharmacy , pharmacology
Background Informing patients about their adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and involving them in their medication management should decrease repeat ADRs. An innovative model for informing patients about their ADRs has been in place at an Australian health network. The health network's ADR Review Committee reviews the ADR reports, assigns causality and makes recommendations. Patients are sent a letter about their ADR along with an alert card. Aim To evaluate the existing ADR model. Method Over a 6‐month period, patients who had an ADR report reviewed by the ADR Review Committee were contacted by telephone within 4 weeks of the review and asked questions about the ADR information sent to them. Patients' discharge summaries were concurrently reviewed for ADR information. Feedback about the model was also sought from the hospital's consumer groups. Results Of the 89 ADR reports reviewed, 76 patients were eligible, and 55 (72%) patients consented to participate in the survey. 50 (91%) patients recalled the name of the causative drug, 53 (96%) recalled the reaction, 48 (87%) recalled the ADR Review Committee's recommendation, 28 (50%) had an alert card in their wallet, and 29 (52%) had shown or were intending to show the letter to their doctor, but only 3 to their pharmacist. 95% of respondents would recommend this model to other hospitals. 35 (63%) patients wanted the letter sent directly to their doctor. Of the 54 discharge summaries reviewed, the ADR was documented in 43 (80%), details of the reaction in 43 (80%) and specific management advice in 10 (19%). Feedback from the hospital's consumer groups (n = 15) was positive and informed improvements to the model. Conclusion The ADR model was well received by patients, who retained the information sent. Patient feedback was used to improve the format and content of the ADR information sent. This model could be adapted by other acute and ambulatory settings to facilitate communication between health professionals and patients to avoid repeat ADRs.