Tinne Dilles1,2, Bart Van Rompaey3, Peter Van Bogaert3, Monique M Elseviers3,4. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Nursing Science, Centre For Research and Innovation in Care (CRIC), Belgium, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, DR 3.32, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium. Tinne.Dilles@UAntwerpen.be. 2. Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Thomas More University College, Lier, Belgium. Tinne.Dilles@UAntwerpen.be. 3. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Nursing Science, Centre For Research and Innovation in Care (CRIC), Belgium, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, DR 3.32, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium. 4. Heymans Institute of Pharmacology, University of Ghent, De Pintenlaan 185, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Nursing home residents are at high risk for adverse drug reactions (ADR). To improve pharmacotherapeutic care for individual residents, healthcare professionals need to be aware of ADRs. In nursing homes, nurses have a central role in monitoring residents' health and informing physicians on the presence of ADRs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of nursing home residents' ADR reports. METHODS: Residents of a convenient sample of two nursing homes were included if their mental status and understanding of Dutch enabled them to report ADRs. In a cross-sectional design, residents and nurses were questioned about 17 potential ADRs. Reports of residents and nurses were consequently compared. Medication use was studied to describe the risk for ADRs per resident. RESULTS: Residents had a mean of eight different chronic medication prescriptions. Over 90% of the residents used medications which increase the risk of feeling somnolent/tired/sedated, arrhythmias and abdominal pain. The median number of potential ADRs reported by nurses was significantly lower compared to the number of resident reports (median [range], respectively, 1 [1-10] and 4 [1-10]). In general, residents reported the presence of more ADRs than nurses, except for confusion. The correspondence between nurse and resident reports ranged from 43% (dry mouth) till 88% (arrhythmia). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and patients reported a lot of potential ADRs. The type of ADRs they reported was different and complementary. Questioning residents about specific potential ADRs may increase the awareness of ADRs.
PURPOSE: Nursing home residents are at high risk for adverse drug reactions (ADR). To improve pharmacotherapeutic care for individual residents, healthcare professionals need to be aware of ADRs. In nursing homes, nurses have a central role in monitoring residents' health and informing physicians on the presence of ADRs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of nursing home residents' ADR reports. METHODS: Residents of a convenient sample of two nursing homes were included if their mental status and understanding of Dutch enabled them to report ADRs. In a cross-sectional design, residents and nurses were questioned about 17 potential ADRs. Reports of residents and nurses were consequently compared. Medication use was studied to describe the risk for ADRs per resident. RESULTS: Residents had a mean of eight different chronic medication prescriptions. Over 90% of the residents used medications which increase the risk of feeling somnolent/tired/sedated, arrhythmias and abdominal pain. The median number of potential ADRs reported by nurses was significantly lower compared to the number of resident reports (median [range], respectively, 1 [1-10] and 4 [1-10]). In general, residents reported the presence of more ADRs than nurses, except for confusion. The correspondence between nurse and resident reports ranged from 43% (dry mouth) till 88% (arrhythmia). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and patients reported a lot of potential ADRs. The type of ADRs they reported was different and complementary. Questioning residents about specific potential ADRs may increase the awareness of ADRs.
Authors: Tinne Dilles; Robert H Vander Stichele; Lucas M Van Bortel; Monique M Elseviers Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Yves Rolland; Barbara Resnick; Paul R Katz; Milta O Little; Joseph G Ouslander; Alice Bonner; Carol R Geary; Karen L Schumacher; Sarah Thompson; Finbarr C Martin; Joachim Wilbers; Franziska Zúñiga; D Ausserhofer; R Schwendimann; S Schüssler; Theo Dassen; Christa Lohrmann; Cari Levy; Emily Whitfield; Philipe de Souto Barreto; Christopher Etherton-Beer; Tinne Dilles; Majda Azermai; Jolyce Bourgeois; Martin Orrell; George T Grossberg; Hélène Kergoat; David R Thomas; Jan Visschedijk; Stephanie J C Taylor; Yvonne S Handajani; Nelly T Widjaja; Yuda Turana; Marilyn J Rantz; Marjorie Skubic; John E Morley Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Sue Jordan; Timothy Banner; Marie Gabe-Walters; Jane M Mikhail; Jeff Round; Sherrill Snelgrove; Mel Storey; Douglas Wilson; David Hughes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tinne Dilles; Jana Heczkova; Styliani Tziaferi; Ann Karin Helgesen; Vigdis Abrahamsen Grøndahl; Bart Van Rompaey; Carolien G Sino; Sue Jordan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 3.390