RESUMO
Investigating pharmacovigilance (PV) practices among oncology healthcare providers (HCPs) is crucial for patient safety in oncology settings. This study aimed to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices towards PV and identify barriers to effective adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting for HCPs working in oncology-related settings. Employing a cross-sectional survey design, we collected data from 65 HCPs, focusing on their experiences with ADR reporting, education on ADR management, and familiarity with PV protocols. The results showed that about half of the responders were pharmacists. Around 58.9% of the respondents reported ADRs internally, and 76.9% had received some form of ADR-related education. However, only 38.5% were aware of formal ADR review procedures. Methotrexate and paclitaxel emerged as the drugs most frequently associated with ADRs. The complexity of cancer treatments was among the common reasons for the low reporting of ADRs by the study participants. The findings highlight the need for enhanced PV education and standardized reporting mechanisms to improve oncology care. We conclude that reinforcing PV training and streamlining ADR-reporting processes are critical to optimizing patient outcomes and safety in oncology, advocating for targeted educational interventions and the development of unified PV guidelines.
RESUMO
Background: Chemotherapy safety guidelines have been enacted to minimize their side effects on healthcare providers when handling medications. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of an educational intervention on healthcare workers' compliance with chemotherapy safety guidelines. Methods: In this study, we used a quasi-experimental, pre-post testing design. It was conducted in the Oncology center at King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All healthcare workers involved in the preparation and administration of chemotherapy medications in KSUMC were invited. We evaluated Educational intervention to ensure the compliance of healthcare workers with standard safety guidelines through a questionnaire with 29 questions in total. Results: Fifty-two participants were eligible in this study. Overall, the score for mean compliance with workplace guidelines among the participants increased from 17.62∓0.78 to 18.17∓0.80 out of 19. Multiple liner regression indicates that there are no variables among the included variables predicting a change in post-intervention. Conclusion: This study indicates that educational intervention is the only effect of compliance in the included sample. Education safety training could improve healthcare workers' knowledge and consequently improve their compliance in the preparation and administration of chemotherapy medication.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: When a patient concomitantly uses two or more drugs, a drug-drug interaction (DDI) may occur, and patients with cancer are at high risk of DDIs because they commonly receive multiple medications. However, data on the prevalence of DDIs are scarce, especially in Saudi Arabia. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the occurrence of DDIs in patients with cancer and identify risk factors for these DDIs and the clinical outcomes. METHOD: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in KFMC. Data were collected from the medical records and phone calls, and the patient's drugs were screened for interactions using Micromedex and Lexi-Comp. The data were statistically analysed using IBM SPSS version 24 statistical program. RESULTS: In 72 patients (mean age of 47 years; 11 medications), the prevalence of DDIs was 60 %, and 2 potential DDIs were identified. According to Lexi-Comp, 137 (51.8 %) were categorized as pharmacodynamics interactions. In Micromedex, 94 potential DDIs were identified, 68.1 % were categorized as pharmacokinetic interactions, the comparison between the interaction of Lexi-Comp and Micromedex for 9 drugs. Eight drug pairs showed statistically significant difference in category of interaction (P < 0.05). Six pair of drugs showed statistically significant difference in mechanism of action (p < 0.05). Number of drugs was reported as significant risk factor (p = 0.007), type of treatment such as chemotherapy (p = 0.0000) and inpatient admission in terms of length of stay in hospital was also found significant risk factor (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: To prevent DDIs, Physicians and pharmacists should be more aware of these potential interactions to prevent DDIs.