The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study
In a new prescribing qualification course for specialist oncology nurses, we thought that it is important to emphasize pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. We aimed to develop and evaluate an ADR reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses. The quality of report docum...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology 2018-01, Vol.391 (1), p.17-26 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 26 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 17 |
container_title | Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology |
container_volume | 391 |
creator | Schutte, Tim van Eekeren, Rike Richir, Milan van Staveren, Jojanneke van Puijenbroek, Eugène Tichelaar, Jelle van Agtmael, Michiel |
description | In a new prescribing qualification course for specialist oncology nurses, we thought that it is important to emphasize pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. We aimed to develop and evaluate an ADR reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses. The quality of report documentation was assessed with the “Clinical Documentation tool to assess Individual Case Safety Reports” (ClinDoc). The relevance of the reports was evaluated in terms of ADR seriousness, the listing for additional monitoring of the drug by European Medicines Agency (EMA), and lack of labelling information about the ADR. Nurses’ opinions of the assignment were evaluated using an E-survey. Thirty-three ADRs were reported, 32 (97%) of which were well documented according to ClinDoc. Thirteen ADRs (39%) were “serious” according to CIOMS criteria. In five cases (15%), the suspect drugs were listed for additional monitoring by EMA and in seven cases (21%), the ADR was not mentioned in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Twenty-five (78.1%) of the 32 enrolled nurses completed the E-survey. Most were > 45 years of age (68%), female (92%) and had extensive clinical experience (6–33 years). All agreed or completely agreed that the reporting assignment was useful, that it fitted in daily practice and that it increased their attention for medication/patient safety. A large majority (84.0%) agreed the assignment changed how they dealt with ADRs. Specialist oncology nurses are capable of reporting ADRs, and they considered the assignment useful. The assignment yielded valuable, relevant, and well-documented ADR reports for pharmacovigilance practice. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00210-017-1430-z |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5748417</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1955073470</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-30118e71147531c6f6ac33ada896530ae346f898ef7a3f7fe1fc6592519117373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1ks1u1DAUhS0EokPhAdggS2xYNOAbJ3HCohKqyo9UiU1ZW8a5zrhy7NRORpq-FW-IM1OqgsTKls53z_3RIeQ1sPfAmPiQGCuBFQxEARVnxd0TssmfsoAOyqdkk-W2gLJrT8iLlG4YYw3U9XNyUnas4cDFhvy63iJV_Q5jQtrHZaARlZ5t8PkzhThbP1CVkh38iH6mJkSaJtRWOZtmGrwOLgx76pdskD5SRaeIzo7Wq7inuFNuUQe3YOjtkovm_Vl2dlnxOnf2PcV-0QdGObrySK0_-IS10Wx3SHXY5lFompd-_5I8M8olfHX_npIfny-vL74WV9-_fLv4dFXoSrC54AygRQFQiZqDbkyjNOeqV23X1Jwp5FVj2q5FIxQ3wiAY3dRdWefbgeCCn5Lzo--0_Byx13n7qJycoh3zajIoK_9WvN3KIexkLaq2gtXg3b1BDLcLplmONml0TnkMS5LQ1TUTPE-b0bf_oDdhifkgK9XykrUdrBQcKZ1PkyKah2GAyTUQ8hgImQMh10DIu1zz5vEWDxV_EpCB8gikLPkB46PW_3X9DUIXxj8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1983208910</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Schutte, Tim ; van Eekeren, Rike ; Richir, Milan ; van Staveren, Jojanneke ; van Puijenbroek, Eugène ; Tichelaar, Jelle ; van Agtmael, Michiel</creator><creatorcontrib>Schutte, Tim ; van Eekeren, Rike ; Richir, Milan ; van Staveren, Jojanneke ; van Puijenbroek, Eugène ; Tichelaar, Jelle ; van Agtmael, Michiel</creatorcontrib><description>In a new prescribing qualification course for specialist oncology nurses, we thought that it is important to emphasize pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. We aimed to develop and evaluate an ADR reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses. The quality of report documentation was assessed with the “Clinical Documentation tool to assess Individual Case Safety Reports” (ClinDoc). The relevance of the reports was evaluated in terms of ADR seriousness, the listing for additional monitoring of the drug by European Medicines Agency (EMA), and lack of labelling information about the ADR. Nurses’ opinions of the assignment were evaluated using an E-survey. Thirty-three ADRs were reported, 32 (97%) of which were well documented according to ClinDoc. Thirteen ADRs (39%) were “serious” according to CIOMS criteria. In five cases (15%), the suspect drugs were listed for additional monitoring by EMA and in seven cases (21%), the ADR was not mentioned in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Twenty-five (78.1%) of the 32 enrolled nurses completed the E-survey. Most were > 45 years of age (68%), female (92%) and had extensive clinical experience (6–33 years). All agreed or completely agreed that the reporting assignment was useful, that it fitted in daily practice and that it increased their attention for medication/patient safety. A large majority (84.0%) agreed the assignment changed how they dealt with ADRs. Specialist oncology nurses are capable of reporting ADRs, and they considered the assignment useful. The assignment yielded valuable, relevant, and well-documented ADR reports for pharmacovigilance practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0028-1298</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1912</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00210-017-1430-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29063137</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Cohort analysis ; Documentation ; Labeling ; Medical personnel ; Neurosciences ; Nurses ; Oncology ; Original ; Original Article ; Patient safety ; Pharmacology/Toxicology ; Pharmacovigilance</subject><ispartof>Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2018-01, Vol.391 (1), p.17-26</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2017</rights><rights>Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology is a copyright of Springer, (2017). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-30118e71147531c6f6ac33ada896530ae346f898ef7a3f7fe1fc6592519117373</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-30118e71147531c6f6ac33ada896530ae346f898ef7a3f7fe1fc6592519117373</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00210-017-1430-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00210-017-1430-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27922,27923,41486,42555,51317</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29063137$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schutte, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Eekeren, Rike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richir, Milan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Staveren, Jojanneke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Puijenbroek, Eugène</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tichelaar, Jelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Agtmael, Michiel</creatorcontrib><title>The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study</title><title>Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology</title><addtitle>Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol</addtitle><addtitle>Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol</addtitle><description>In a new prescribing qualification course for specialist oncology nurses, we thought that it is important to emphasize pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. We aimed to develop and evaluate an ADR reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses. The quality of report documentation was assessed with the “Clinical Documentation tool to assess Individual Case Safety Reports” (ClinDoc). The relevance of the reports was evaluated in terms of ADR seriousness, the listing for additional monitoring of the drug by European Medicines Agency (EMA), and lack of labelling information about the ADR. Nurses’ opinions of the assignment were evaluated using an E-survey. Thirty-three ADRs were reported, 32 (97%) of which were well documented according to ClinDoc. Thirteen ADRs (39%) were “serious” according to CIOMS criteria. In five cases (15%), the suspect drugs were listed for additional monitoring by EMA and in seven cases (21%), the ADR was not mentioned in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Twenty-five (78.1%) of the 32 enrolled nurses completed the E-survey. Most were > 45 years of age (68%), female (92%) and had extensive clinical experience (6–33 years). All agreed or completely agreed that the reporting assignment was useful, that it fitted in daily practice and that it increased their attention for medication/patient safety. A large majority (84.0%) agreed the assignment changed how they dealt with ADRs. Specialist oncology nurses are capable of reporting ADRs, and they considered the assignment useful. The assignment yielded valuable, relevant, and well-documented ADR reports for pharmacovigilance practice.</description><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Documentation</subject><subject>Labeling</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Patient safety</subject><subject>Pharmacology/Toxicology</subject><subject>Pharmacovigilance</subject><issn>0028-1298</issn><issn>1432-1912</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1ks1u1DAUhS0EokPhAdggS2xYNOAbJ3HCohKqyo9UiU1ZW8a5zrhy7NRORpq-FW-IM1OqgsTKls53z_3RIeQ1sPfAmPiQGCuBFQxEARVnxd0TssmfsoAOyqdkk-W2gLJrT8iLlG4YYw3U9XNyUnas4cDFhvy63iJV_Q5jQtrHZaARlZ5t8PkzhThbP1CVkh38iH6mJkSaJtRWOZtmGrwOLgx76pdskD5SRaeIzo7Wq7inuFNuUQe3YOjtkovm_Vl2dlnxOnf2PcV-0QdGObrySK0_-IS10Wx3SHXY5lFompd-_5I8M8olfHX_npIfny-vL74WV9-_fLv4dFXoSrC54AygRQFQiZqDbkyjNOeqV23X1Jwp5FVj2q5FIxQ3wiAY3dRdWefbgeCCn5Lzo--0_Byx13n7qJycoh3zajIoK_9WvN3KIexkLaq2gtXg3b1BDLcLplmONml0TnkMS5LQ1TUTPE-b0bf_oDdhifkgK9XykrUdrBQcKZ1PkyKah2GAyTUQ8hgImQMh10DIu1zz5vEWDxV_EpCB8gikLPkB46PW_3X9DUIXxj8</recordid><startdate>20180101</startdate><enddate>20180101</enddate><creator>Schutte, Tim</creator><creator>van Eekeren, Rike</creator><creator>Richir, Milan</creator><creator>van Staveren, Jojanneke</creator><creator>van Puijenbroek, Eugène</creator><creator>Tichelaar, Jelle</creator><creator>van Agtmael, Michiel</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180101</creationdate><title>The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study</title><author>Schutte, Tim ; van Eekeren, Rike ; Richir, Milan ; van Staveren, Jojanneke ; van Puijenbroek, Eugène ; Tichelaar, Jelle ; van Agtmael, Michiel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-30118e71147531c6f6ac33ada896530ae346f898ef7a3f7fe1fc6592519117373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Documentation</topic><topic>Labeling</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Patient safety</topic><topic>Pharmacology/Toxicology</topic><topic>Pharmacovigilance</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schutte, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Eekeren, Rike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richir, Milan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Staveren, Jojanneke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Puijenbroek, Eugène</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tichelaar, Jelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Agtmael, Michiel</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA/Free Journals</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schutte, Tim</au><au>van Eekeren, Rike</au><au>Richir, Milan</au><au>van Staveren, Jojanneke</au><au>van Puijenbroek, Eugène</au><au>Tichelaar, Jelle</au><au>van Agtmael, Michiel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study</atitle><jtitle>Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology</jtitle><stitle>Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol</stitle><addtitle>Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol</addtitle><date>2018-01-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>391</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>17</spage><epage>26</epage><pages>17-26</pages><issn>0028-1298</issn><eissn>1432-1912</eissn><abstract>In a new prescribing qualification course for specialist oncology nurses, we thought that it is important to emphasize pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. We aimed to develop and evaluate an ADR reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses. The quality of report documentation was assessed with the “Clinical Documentation tool to assess Individual Case Safety Reports” (ClinDoc). The relevance of the reports was evaluated in terms of ADR seriousness, the listing for additional monitoring of the drug by European Medicines Agency (EMA), and lack of labelling information about the ADR. Nurses’ opinions of the assignment were evaluated using an E-survey. Thirty-three ADRs were reported, 32 (97%) of which were well documented according to ClinDoc. Thirteen ADRs (39%) were “serious” according to CIOMS criteria. In five cases (15%), the suspect drugs were listed for additional monitoring by EMA and in seven cases (21%), the ADR was not mentioned in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Twenty-five (78.1%) of the 32 enrolled nurses completed the E-survey. Most were > 45 years of age (68%), female (92%) and had extensive clinical experience (6–33 years). All agreed or completely agreed that the reporting assignment was useful, that it fitted in daily practice and that it increased their attention for medication/patient safety. A large majority (84.0%) agreed the assignment changed how they dealt with ADRs. Specialist oncology nurses are capable of reporting ADRs, and they considered the assignment useful. The assignment yielded valuable, relevant, and well-documented ADR reports for pharmacovigilance practice.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>29063137</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00210-017-1430-z</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0028-1298 |
ispartof | Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2018-01, Vol.391 (1), p.17-26 |
issn | 0028-1298 1432-1912 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5748417 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine Cohort analysis Documentation Labeling Medical personnel Neurosciences Nurses Oncology Original Original Article Patient safety Pharmacology/Toxicology Pharmacovigilance |
title | The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T19%3A56%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20adverse%20drug%20reaction%20reporting%20assignment%20for%20specialist%20oncology%20nurses:%20a%20preliminary%20evaluation%20of%20quality,%20relevance%20and%20educational%20value%20in%20a%20prospective%20cohort%20study&rft.jtitle=Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's%20archives%20of%20pharmacology&rft.au=Schutte,%20Tim&rft.date=2018-01-01&rft.volume=391&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=17&rft.epage=26&rft.pages=17-26&rft.issn=0028-1298&rft.eissn=1432-1912&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00210-017-1430-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1955073470%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1983208910&rft_id=info:pmid/29063137&rfr_iscdi=true |