Literature DB >> 14616426

The involvement of nurses in reporting suspected adverse drug reactions: experience with the meningococcal vaccination scheme.

S Sri Ranganathan1, J E Houghton, D P Davies, P A Routledge.   

Abstract

AIMS: In order to aid the monitoring of the new Meningococcal serogroup C Conjugate (Men C) vaccine, the Yellow Card Scheme was extended to allow nurses for the first time to report any suspected adverse reactions associated with these vaccines. We have analysed the Yellow Cards received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) Wales from nurses reporting a suspected reaction in association with these vaccines during the first 16 months of the programme.
METHODS: CSM Wales receives Yellow Cards from healthcare professionals in Wales. Details of Yellow Cards reporting a suspected adverse reaction associated with Men C vaccines during the study period were extracted from the CSM Wales database and analysed according to health professional category [nurses, General Practitioners (GP), hospital doctors or pharmacists].
RESULTS: During the study period 534 117 doses of Men C vaccines were administered in Wales; in the same period CSM Wales received 1095 Yellow Cards containing 1952 suspected reactions. Nurses completed 529 [48.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 43.6, 53.1] Yellow Cards compared with 294 (26.8%, 95% CI 22.7, 30.8) from GPs, 262 (23.9%, 95% CI 20.1, 27.6) from hospital doctors and 10 (0.91%, 95% CI 0.43, 1.73) from others, which include hospital pharmacists, community pharmacists and health visitors. The proportion of Yellow Cards sent by nurses was significantly higher than those sent by GPs and hospital doctors. Ninety-five percent CIs for differences in proportions (CI diff prop) were (0.175, 0.254) and (0.204, 0.282), respectively. The majority (90.9%, 95% CI 88.7, 93.5) of the Yellow Cards from nurses reported suspected reactions children in over the age of 5 (95% CI diff prop 0.861, 0.917). The spectrum of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) involved the skin and subcutaneous tissue, central nervous system, general reactions, and the gastrointestinal tract. Of the suspected reactions reported by nurses, GPs and hospital doctors, 13.4% (95% CI 10.5, 15.8), 12.9% (95% CI 9.6, 16.8) and 9.1% (95% CI 6.5, 11.8), respectively, were of serious reactions. Nurses reported 52.5% (95% CI 45.4, 60.6) of all the suspected serious reactions, which was statistically more significant than hospital doctors [chi2 = 5.864, degree of freedom (DF) = 1, P < 0.05] but not GPs (chi2 = 0.066, DF = 1, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Nurses were the health professionals who provided the largest proportion of reports of suspected ADRs and almost half of all reports during the Men C vaccination campaign. Their reports contained an equal proportion of serious suspected ADRs and the reports were documented as completely as those from GPs and hospital doctors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14616426      PMCID: PMC1884300          DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2003.01903.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0306-5251            Impact factor:   4.335


  8 in total

1.  Specialist nurse reporting of adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  S Morrison-Griffiths; M Pirmohamed
Journal:  Prof Nurse       Date:  2000-02

2.  Reporting of adverse drug reactions: practice in the UK.

Authors:  S Morrison-Griffiths; M Pirmohamed; T Walley
Journal:  Nurs Times       Date:  1998 Mar 11-17

3.  Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods.

Authors:  R G Newcombe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Authors:  J Lazarou; B H Pomeranz; P N Corey
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-04-15       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  [Adverse drug effect notifications by nurses and comparison with cases reported by physicians].

Authors:  K Sacilotto; H Bagheri; M Lapeyre-Mestre; J L Montastruc; P Montastruc
Journal:  Therapie       Date:  1995 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.070

6.  The spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions by nurses.

Authors:  M Hall; P McCormack; N Arthurs; J Feely
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.335

7.  Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. A comparison of doctors, nurses and patients as sources of reports.

Authors:  P M van den Bemt; A C Egberts; A W Lenderink; J M Verzijl; K A Simons; W S van der Pol; H G Leufkens
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  Pharmacovigilance: paradise lost, regained or postponed? The William Withering Lecture 1994.

Authors:  M D Rawlins
Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Lond       Date:  1995 Jan-Feb
  8 in total
  10 in total

1.  Surveillance of adverse effects during a vaccination campaign against meningitis C.

Authors:  Anne Laribière; Ghada Miremont-Salamé; Hadrien Reyre; Abdelilah Abouelfath; Ludovic Liège; Nicholas Moore; Françoise Haramburu
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2005-11-18       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Development of a Controlled Vocabulary-Based Adverse Drug Reaction Signal Dictionary for Multicenter Electronic Health Record-Based Pharmacovigilance.

Authors:  Suehyun Lee; Jongsoo Han; Rae Woong Park; Grace Juyun Kim; John Hoon Rim; Jooyoung Cho; Kye Hwa Lee; Jisan Lee; Sujeong Kim; Ju Han Kim
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  Non-medical prescribers and pharmacovigilance: participation, competence and future needs.

Authors:  Derek Stewart; Katie MacLure; Vibhu Paudyal; Carmel Hughes; Molly Courtenay; James McLay
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2013-01-01

4.  Improving adverse drug reaction reporting in hospitals: results of the French Pharmacovigilance in Midi-Pyrénées region (PharmacoMIP) network 2-year pilot study.

Authors:  Mireille Gony; Kattalin Badie; Agnès Sommet; Julien Jacquot; Dominique Baudrin; Pierre Gauthier; Jean Louis Montastruc; Haleh Bagheri
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2010-05-01       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines in a paediatric population.

Authors:  Pilar Carrasco-Garrido; Carmen Gallardo-Pino; Rodrigo Jiménez-García; Miguel A Tapias; Angel Gil de Miguel
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.859

6.  Standard-based comprehensive detection of adverse drug reaction signals from nursing statements and laboratory results in electronic health records.

Authors:  Suehyun Lee; Jiyeob Choi; Hun-Sung Kim; Grace Juyun Kim; Kye Hwa Lee; Chan Hee Park; Jongsoo Han; Dukyong Yoon; Man Young Park; Rae Woong Park; Hye-Ryun Kang; Ju Han Kim
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  Organization factors influencing nurse ability to prevent and detect adverse drug events in public hospitals using a patient safety model.

Authors:  Ali Azeez Al-Jumaili; Sarah K Abbood; Ashwaq N Abbas; Hind Mowafak Rafaeel; Fatima Raheem Mohammed; Al-Zahraa Ali
Journal:  Saudi Pharm J       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Detection of unknown ototoxic adverse drug reactions: an electronic healthcare record-based longitudinal nationwide cohort analysis.

Authors:  Suehyun Lee; Jaehun Cha; Jong-Yeup Kim; Gil Myeong Son; Dong-Kyu Kim
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Healthcare providers' knowledge, experience and challenges of reporting adverse events following immunisation: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Adriana Parrella; Annette Braunack-Mayer; Michael Gold; Helen Marshall; Peter Baghurst
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Tim Schutte; Rike van Eekeren; Milan Richir; Jojanneke van Staveren; Eugène van Puijenbroek; Jelle Tichelaar; Michiel van Agtmael
Journal:  Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 3.000

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.