Community pharmacists' attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting
Open Access
- 1 June 1999
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in International Journal of Pharmacy Practice
- Vol. 7 (2) , 92-99
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7174.1999.tb00955.x
Abstract
Objective A “demonstration” scheme for adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting by United Kingdom community pharmacists began in April, 1997. The objective of this study was to investigate community pharmacists' attitudes to and knowledge of ADR reporting and the “yellow card” scheme. Method Structured face-to-face interview with community pharmacists, using a prepiloted questionnaire. Setting Randomly selected community pharmacies within one demonstration scheme area. Key findings Almost all of the pharmacists (28, 93 per cent) were aware that they were able to report ADRs but only one had done so. Just under half recalled receiving the official information pack and half of these had read it. Reasons given for not submitting reports were lack of information or time, and that most reactions seen were already well-recognised. Although most pharmacists knew that serious reactions to established drugs should be reported, fewer recognised the need to report unusual reactions to established drugs and reactions to herbal medicines. Few participants knew the reporting criteria for “black triangle” drugs. Reporting on over-the-counter (OTC) products was an area specifically identified where it was expected that community pharmacists could “add value” to the previous, yellow card, scheme. It was thus of some concern that 21 pharmacists (70 per cent) agreed that they would be unlikely to report an ADR to a product they had counter-prescribed for a patient. Few respondents had negative attitudes to the scheme. Most agreed that ADR reporting is important, and a professional role in which pharmacists should be involved. Conclusion Community pharmacists are supportive of their involvement in ADR reporting. Their concerns about reporting need to be addressed and further publicity given to the scheme if reporting is to increase. Our findings suggest that more research is needed to identify the factors which encourage and inhibit reporting, and that further efforts may be needed to promote ADR reporting.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH METHODS IN PHARMACY: Qualitative interviewsInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 1998
- Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized PatientsJAMA, 1998
- Reporting of adverse drug reactions by hospital pharmacists: pilot schemeBMJ, 1997
- Attitudinal survey of adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in the United Kingdom [see comments]British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1995
- Drug-Related Hospital AdmissionsAnnals of Pharmacotherapy, 1993
- Stimulating reporting of adverse drug reactions by using a fee.BMJ, 1990