Lise Aagaard1, Doris Irene Stenver, Ebba Holme Hansen. 1. Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Section for Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. lia@dkma.dk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the organisational structure and processes of the Danish and Australian spontaneous ADR reporting systems with a view to how information is generated about new ADRs. SETTING: The Danish and Australian spontaneous ADR reporting systems. METHOD: Qualitative analyses of documentary material, descriptive interviews with key informants, and observations were made. We analysed the organisational structure of the Danish and Australian ADR reporting systems with respect to structures and processes, including information flow and exchange of ADR data. The analysis was made based on Scott's adapted version of Leavitt's diamond model, with the components: goals/tasks, social structure, technology and participants, within a surrounding environment. RESULTS: The main differences between the systems were: (1) PARTICIPANTS: Outsourcing of ADR assessments to the pharmaceutical companies complicates maintenance of scientific skills within the Danish Medicines Agency (DKMA), as it leaves the handling of spontaneous ADR reports purely administrative within the DKMA, and the knowledge creation process remains with the pharmaceutical companies, while in Australia senior scientific staff work with evaluation of the ADR report; (2) Goals/tasks: In Denmark, resources are targeted at evaluating Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSUR) submitted by the companies, while the resources in Australia are focused on single case assessment resulting in faster and more proactive medicine surveillance; (3) Social structure: Discussions between scientific staff about ADRs take place in Australia, while the Danish system primarily focuses on entering and forwarding ADR data to the relevant pharmaceutical companies; (4) Technology: The Danish system exchanges ADR data electronically with pharmaceutical companies and the other EU countries, while Australia does not have a system for electronic exchange of ADR data; and (5) ENVIRONMENT: The Danish ADR system is embedded in the routines of cooperation within European pharmacovigilance network while the Australian system is acting alone, although they communicate with other systems. CONCLUSION: The two systems differ with regard to reporting requirements, report handling, resources being spent and information exchange with the environment. In Denmark, learning about ADRs primarily takes place in the safety divisions of the pharmaceutical companies and the authorities have no control over the knowledge creation process. In Australia, more learning and control of the knowledge is present than in Denmark.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the organisational structure and processes of the Danish and Australian spontaneous ADR reporting systems with a view to how information is generated about new ADRs. SETTING: The Danish and Australian spontaneous ADR reporting systems. METHOD: Qualitative analyses of documentary material, descriptive interviews with key informants, and observations were made. We analysed the organisational structure of the Danish and Australian ADR reporting systems with respect to structures and processes, including information flow and exchange of ADR data. The analysis was made based on Scott's adapted version of Leavitt's diamond model, with the components: goals/tasks, social structure, technology and participants, within a surrounding environment. RESULTS: The main differences between the systems were: (1) PARTICIPANTS: Outsourcing of ADR assessments to the pharmaceutical companies complicates maintenance of scientific skills within the Danish Medicines Agency (DKMA), as it leaves the handling of spontaneous ADR reports purely administrative within the DKMA, and the knowledge creation process remains with the pharmaceutical companies, while in Australia senior scientific staff work with evaluation of the ADR report; (2) Goals/tasks: In Denmark, resources are targeted at evaluating Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSUR) submitted by the companies, while the resources in Australia are focused on single case assessment resulting in faster and more proactive medicine surveillance; (3) Social structure: Discussions between scientific staff about ADRs take place in Australia, while the Danish system primarily focuses on entering and forwarding ADR data to the relevant pharmaceutical companies; (4) Technology: The Danish system exchanges ADR data electronically with pharmaceutical companies and the other EU countries, while Australia does not have a system for electronic exchange of ADR data; and (5) ENVIRONMENT: The Danish ADR system is embedded in the routines of cooperation within European pharmacovigilance network while the Australian system is acting alone, although they communicate with other systems. CONCLUSION: The two systems differ with regard to reporting requirements, report handling, resources being spent and information exchange with the environment. In Denmark, learning about ADRs primarily takes place in the safety divisions of the pharmaceutical companies and the authorities have no control over the knowledge creation process. In Australia, more learning and control of the knowledge is present than in Denmark.