Sharing Adverse Drug Event Reports Between Hospitals and Community Pharmacists to Inform Re-dispensing: An Analysis of Reports and Process Outcomes

Adverse drug reactions in older people following hospitalisation: a qualitative exploration of general practitioners' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Older people have greater comorbidity and medication burden. Adverse drug reactions occur in up to 30% of older people within one month of hospital discharge. General practitioners are key stakeholders in transitions of care from hospital to the community.

AIM

The study aimed to explore general practitioner perspectives of adverse drug reactions in older people after hospitalisation, investigating the medication-related issues encountered and possible approaches to reduce the risk.

METHOD

An invitation to participate in the study was sent to general practitioners in Southern Tasmania, Australia. A semi-structured interview occurred in person at their practice or online. The questions covered experiences with managing medication in older people after hospital discharge, challenges and risks involving adverse drug reactions and suggestions to prevent adverse drug reactions. The interviews were transcribed and analysed through thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve general practitioners were interviewed, revealing four themes describing challenges, including (i) complex patients and acceptance of risk, (ii) patient confusion and decline in hospital, (iii) time taken to manage older patients and (iv) communication challenges. Three themes describing recommendations were identified, including (i) clear communication on discharge, (ii) patient involvement and (iii) roles for pharmacists.

CONCLUSION

Prevention of adverse drug reactions after hospital discharge may require clear and timely communication to general practitioners, patients and families to be educated and empowered to help manage their own health and risk, and pharmacists to support both patients and general practitioners in managing the risks.

Characterizing and Comparing Adverse Drug Events Documented in 2 Spontaneous Reporting Systems in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada: Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Robust adverse drug event (ADE) reporting systems are crucial to monitor and identify drug safety signals, but the quantity and type of ADEs captured may vary by system characteristics.

OBJECTIVE

We compared ADEs reported in 2 different reporting systems in the same jurisdictions, the Patient Safety and Learning System-Adverse Drug Reaction (PSLS-ADR) and ActionADE, to understand report variation.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study analyzed reports entered into PSLS-ADR and ActionADE systems between December 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022. We conducted a comprehensive analysis including all events from both reporting systems to examine coverage and usage and understand the types of events captured in both systems. We calculated descriptive statistics for reporting facility type, patient demographics, serious events, and most reported drugs. We conducted a subanalysis focused on adverse drug reactions to enable direct comparisons between systems in terms of the volume and events reported. We stratified results by reporting system.

RESULTS

We performed the comprehensive analysis on 3248 ADE reports, of which 12.4% (375/3035) were reported in PSLS-ADR and 87.6% (2660/3035) were reported in ActionADE. Distribution of all events and serious events varied slightly between the 2 systems. Iohexol, gadobutrol, and empagliflozin were the most common culprit drugs (173/375, 46.2%) in PSLS-ADR, while hydrochlorothiazide, apixaban, and ramipril (308/2660, 11.6%) were common in ActionADE. We included 2728 reports in the subanalysis of adverse drug reactions, of which 12.9% (353/2728) were reported in PSLS-ADR and 86.4% (2357/2728) were reported in ActionADE. ActionADE captured 4- to 6-fold more comparable events than PSLS-ADR over this study's period.

CONCLUSIONS

User-friendly and robust reporting systems are vital for pharmacovigilance and patient safety. This study highlights substantial differences in ADE data that were generated by different reporting systems. Understanding system factors that lead to varying reporting patterns can enhance ADE monitoring and should be taken into account when evaluating drug safety signals.