RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The completeness of adverse event (AE) reports, crucial for assessing putative causal relationships, is measured using the vigiGrade completeness score in VigiBase, the World Health Organization global database of reported potential AEs. Malaysian reports have surpassed the global average score (approximately 0.44), achieving a 5-year average of 0.79 (SD 0.23) as of 2019 and approaching the benchmark for well-documented reports (0.80). However, the contributing factors to this relatively high report completeness score remain unexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the main drivers influencing the completeness of Malaysian AE reports in VigiBase over a 15-year period using vigiGrade. A secondary objective was to understand the strategic measures taken by the Malaysian authorities leading to enhanced report completeness across different time frames. METHODS: We analyzed 132,738 Malaysian reports (2005-2019) recorded in VigiBase up to February 2021 split into historical International Drug Information System (INTDIS; n=63,943, 48.17% in 2005-2016) and newer E2B (n=68,795, 51.83% in 2015-2019) format subsets. For machine learning analyses, we performed a 2-stage feature selection followed by a random forest classifier to identify the top features predicting well-documented reports. We subsequently applied tree Shapley additive explanations to examine the magnitude, prevalence, and direction of feature effects. In addition, we conducted time-series analyses to evaluate chronological trends and potential influences of key interventions on reporting quality. RESULTS: Among the analyzed reports, 42.84% (56,877/132,738) were well documented, with an increase of 65.37% (53,929/82,497) since 2015. Over two-thirds (46,186/68,795, 67.14%) of the Malaysian E2B reports were well documented compared to INTDIS reports at 16.72% (10,691/63,943). For INTDIS reports, higher pharmacovigilance center staffing was the primary feature positively associated with being well documented. In recent E2B reports, the top positive features included reaction abated upon drug dechallenge, reaction onset or drug use duration of <1 week, dosing interval of <1 day, reports from public specialist hospitals, reports by pharmacists, and reaction duration between 1 and 6 days. In contrast, reports from product registration holders and other health care professionals and reactions involving product substitution issues negatively affected the quality of E2B reports. Multifaceted strategies and interventions comprising policy changes, continuity of education, and human resource development laid the groundwork for AE reporting in Malaysia, whereas advancements in technological infrastructure, pharmacovigilance databases, and reporting tools concurred with increases in both the quantity and quality of AE reports. CONCLUSIONS: Through interpretable machine learning and time-series analyses, this study identified key features that positively or negatively influence the completeness of Malaysian AE reports and unveiled how Malaysia has developed its pharmacovigilance capacity via multifaceted strategies and interventions. These findings will guide future work in enhancing pharmacovigilance and public health.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Drug administration errors are more likely to reach the patient than other medication errors. The main aim of this study was to determine whether the sharing of information on drug administration errors among health care providers would reduce such problems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study involved direct, undisguised observations of drug administrations in two pediatric wards of a major teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. This study consisted of two phases: Phase 1 (pre-intervention) and Phase 2 (post-intervention). Data were collected by two observers over a 40-day period in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the study. Both observers were pharmacy graduates: Observer 1 just completed her undergraduate pharmacy degree, whereas Observer 2 was doing her one-year internship as a provisionally registered pharmacist in the hospital under study. A drug administration error was defined as a discrepancy between the drug regimen received by the patient and that intended by the prescriber and also drug administration procedures that did not follow standard hospital policies and procedures. Results from Phase 1 of the study were analyzed, presented and discussed with the ward staff before commencement of data collection in Phase 2. RESULTS: A total of 1,284 and 1,401 doses of drugs were administered in Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively. The rate of drug administration errors reduced significantly from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (44.3% versus 28.6%, respectively; P<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the adjusted odds of drug administration errors in Phase 1 of the study were almost three times that in Phase 2 (P<0.001). The most common types of errors were incorrect administration technique and incorrect drug preparation. Nasogastric and intravenous routes of drug administration contributed significantly to the rate of drug administration errors. CONCLUSION: This study showed that sharing of the types of errors that had occurred was significantly associated with a reduction in drug administration errors.