METHOD: Structured interviews with community pharmacists. Informed consent was obtained and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Content analysis of themes on awareness of ADR reporting, reporting activities, attitudes and views on patient reporting.
RESULTS: All pharmacists claimed to have some knowledge of a reporting system but only one had submitted a report directly to the regulatory authority. Despite the low level of reporting activities, all participants agreed that it was part of their professional obligation to report an ADR. Most participants were not aware of the direct patient reporting scheme and were skeptical about its success. Lack of awareness and patients' limited knowledge about their medications were viewed as barriers to patient reporting. Local attitudinal issues including pharmacists' attitude towards ADR reporting were described as possible contributing factors.
CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists have an important role in reporting ADRs. Many Malaysian patients are still perceived to be ill-informed of their medications, an important determinant to the success of patient reporting. There is a need for further training about ADRs and ADR reporting for health professionals and further education for patients.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to externally validate the GerontoNet ADR risk score and to assess its validity in specific subpopulations of older inpatients.
METHODS: Data from the prospective CRIteria to assess appropriate Medication use among Elderly complex patients (CRIME) cohort were used. Dose-dependent and predictable ADRs were classified as type A, probable or definite ADRs were defined according to the Naranjo algorithm, and diagnostic accuracy was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for a cut-off point of 4.
RESULTS: The mean age of the 1075 patients was 81.4 years (standard deviation 7.4) and the median number of drugs was 10 (range 7-13). At least one ADR was observed in 70 patients (6.5%); ADRs were classified as type A in 50 patients (4.7%) and defined as probable or definite in 41 patients (3.8%). Fair diagnostic accuracy to predict both type A and probable or definite ADRs was found in subpopulations aged <70 or ≥80 years with heart failure, diabetes, or a previous ADR. Good accuracy to predict type A ADRs was found in patients with a low body mass index (BMI; >18.5 kg/m2) and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of >24/30 points, as well as in patients with osteoarthritis. The cut-off point of 4 points yielded very good sensitivity but poor specificity results in these subpopulations.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the GerontoNet ADR risk score might represent a pragmatic approach to identifying specific subpopulations of older inpatients at increased risk of an ADR with a fair to good diagnostic accuracy.