Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Resident and nurse reports of potential adverse drug reactions

  • Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Herxheimer A, Crombag M, Alves TL (2010) Direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: a twelve-country survey & literature review. http://www.haiweb.org/14012010/14Jan2010ReportDirectPatientReportingofADRsFINAL.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2014

  2. Inch J, Watson MC, Anakwe-Umeh S (2012) Patient versus healthcare professional spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting: a systematic review. Drug Saf 35(10):807–818. doi:10.2165/11631650-000000000-00000

  3. van Hunsel F, Harmark L, Pal S, Olsson S, van Grootheest K (2012) Experiences with adverse drug reaction reporting by patients: an 11-country survey. Drug Saf 35(1):45–60. doi:10.2165/11594320-000000000-00000

  4. Jordan S (2002) Managing adverse drug reactions: an orphan task. J Adv Nurs 38(5):437–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jordan S, Knight J, Pointon D (2004) Monitoring adverse drug reactions: scales, profiles, and checklists. Int Nurs Rev 51(4):208–221. doi:10.1111/j.1466-7657.2004.00251.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jordan S, Tunnicliffe C, Sykes A (2002) Minimizing side-effects: the clinical impact of nurse-administered ‘side-effect’ checklists. J Adv Nurs 37(2):155–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dilles T, Vander Stichele RH, Van Bortel LM, Elseviers MM (2013) The development and test of an intervention to improve ADR screening in nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14(5):379. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2013.02.011, e371-376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rolland Y, Resnick B, Katz PR, Little MO, Ouslander JG, Bonner A, Geary CR, Schumacher KL, Thompson S, Martin FC, Wilbers J, Zuniga F, Ausserhofer D, Schwendimann R, Schussler S, Dassen T, Lohrmann C, Levy C, Whitfield E, de Souto BP, Etherton-Beer C, Dilles T, Azermai M, Bourgeois J, Orrell M, Grossberg GT, Kergoat H, Thomas DR, Visschedijk J, Taylor SJ, Handajani YS, Widjaja NT, Turana Y, Rantz MJ, Skubic M, Morley JE (2014) Nursing home research: the first International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics (IAGG) research conference. J Am Med Dir Assoc 15(5):313–325. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2014.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gonzalez-Gonzalez C, Lopez-Gonzalez E, Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A (2013) Strategies to improve adverse drug reaction reporting: a critical and systematic review. Drug Saf 36(5):317–328. doi:10.1007/s40264-013-0058-2

  10. Katz S (1983) Assessing self-maintenance: activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. J Am Geriatr Soc 31(12):721–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Elseviers MM, Vander Stichele RR, Van Bortel L (2010) Drug utilization in Belgian nursing homes: impact of residents’ and institutional characteristics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 19(10):1041–1048. doi:10.1002/pds.1983

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. (2014) Belgian Centre of Pharmacotherapeutic Information. http://www.bcfi.be. Last access 11 Nov 2014

  13. (2014) WHO collaboration centre for drug statistics methodology. http://www.whocc.no/atc/structure_and_principles/. Last access 11 Nov 2014

  14. Avery AJ, Anderson C, Bond CM, Fortnum H, Gifford A, Hannaford PC, Hazell L, Krska J, Lee AJ, McLernon DJ, Murphy E, Shakir S, Watson MC (2011) Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK ‘Yellow Card Scheme’: literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys. Health Technol Assess 15(20):1–234. doi:10.3310/hta15200, iii-iv

  15. Jarernsiripornkul N, Chaisrisawadsuk S, Chaiyakum A, Krska J (2009) Patient self-reporting of potential adverse drug reactions to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Thailand. Pharm World Sci 31(5):559–564. doi:10.1007/s11096-009-9310-3

  16. Jarernsiripornkul N, Kakaew W, Loalukkana W, Krska J (2009) Adverse drug reaction monitoring: comparing doctor and patient reporting for new drugs. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 18(3):240–245. doi:10.1002/pds.1708

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Golomb BA, McGraw JJ, Evans MA, Dimsdale JE (2007) Physician response to patient reports of adverse drug effects: implications for patient-targeted adverse effect surveillance. Drug Saf 30(8):669–675

  18. Somers A, Petrovic M, Robays H, Bogaert M (2003) Reporting adverse drug reactions on a geriatric ward: a pilot project. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 58(10):707–714. doi:10.1007/s00228-002-0535-5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chaipichit N, Krska J, Pratipanawatr T, Uchaipichat V, Jarernsiripornkul N (2014) A qualitative study to explore how patients identify and assess symptoms as adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 70(5):607–615. doi:10.1007/s00228-014-1653-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tangiisuran B, Auyeung V, Cheek L, Rajkumar C, Davies G (2013) Inter-rater reliability of the assessment of adverse drug reactions in the hospitalised elderly. J Nutr Health Aging 17(8):700–705. doi:10.1007/s12603-013-0011-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Prof. Dr. Robert Vander Stichele as scientific advisor and Thijs Karman and Heidi Creemers for participating as research assistants in data collection.

Authors’ contribution

TD—conception or design of the work, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data for the work; drafting the work; final approval of the version; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. BVR—contribution to the conception of the design; revising the work critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. PVB—contribution to the conception of the design; revising the work critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. ME—conception or design of the work, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data for the work; revising the work critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  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, Bart Van Rompaey, Peter Van Bogaert & Monique M. Elseviers

  2. Heymans Institute of Pharmacology, University of Ghent, De Pintenlaan 185, Ghent, 9000, Belgium

    Monique M. Elseviers

  3. Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Thomas More University College, Lier, Belgium

    Tinne Dilles

Authors
  1. Tinne Dilles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bart Van Rompaey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Van Bogaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Monique M. Elseviers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tinne Dilles.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dilles, T., Van Rompaey, B., Van Bogaert, P. et al. Resident and nurse reports of potential adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 71, 741–749 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-015-1848-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-015-1848-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation