Knowledge and Barriers Among Physicians Toward Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous reporting systems are essential as they help detect serious unknown adverse drug reaction (ADR). However, underreporting of ADR is a commonly associated problem. This research work aims to assess knowledge, barriers, and factors that encourage the reporting of ADR among physicians. METHODS: A total of 600 physicians working at a tertiary referral hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were included in this cross-sectional study. A pretested questionnaire was used. RESULTS: Out of the 600 physicians, 240 (40%) completed the questionnaire. Most of the participants (85.4%) could correctly define ADR; nearly 75% physicians were unaware of the spontaneous reporting of ADR in Saudi Arabia. A total of 175 (72.9%) physicians had not reported any ADR among their patients in the last year; 40% of the physicians said that they did not report ADR because they were unaware of the online reporting of ADR. Providing guidelines and regular bulletins on the reporting of ADR is a critical aspect that encourages physicians to report ADR (51%). Education and training are the most recognized measures for improving the reporting of ADR. CONCLUSION: Physicians were adequately aware of ADR but inadequately aware of the reporting system and reporting authorities. Continuing medical education, training, and integration of the reporting of ADR into physicians' various clinical activities may improve ADR reporting.

Knowledge of thromboprophylaxis guidelines pre- and post-didactic lectures during a venous thromboembolism awareness day at a tertiary-care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Didactic lectures are frequently used to improve compliance with practice guidelines. This study assessed the knowledge of health-care providers (HCPs) at a tertiary-care hospital of its evidence-based thromboprophylaxis guidelines and the impact of didactic lectures on their knowledge. METHODS: The hospital launched a multifaceted approach to improve thromboprophylaxis practices, which included posters, a pocket-size guidelines summary and didactic lectures during the annual thromboprophylaxis awareness days. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to HCPs before and after lectures on thromboprophylaxis guidelines (June 2010). The questionnaire, formulated and validated by two physicians, two nurses and a clinical pharmacist, covered various subjects such as risk stratification, anticoagulant dosing and the choice of anticoagulants in specific clinical situations. RESULTS: Seventy-two and 63 HCPs submitted the pre- and post-test, respectively (62% physicians, 28% nurses, from different clinical disciplines). The mean scores were 7.8 ± 2.1 (median = 8.0, range = 2-12, maximum possible score = 15) for the pre-test and 8.4 ± 1.8 for the post-test, P = 0.053. There was no significant difference in the pre-test scores of nurses and physicians (7.9 ± 1.7 and 8.2 ± 2.4, respectively, P = 0.67). For the 35 HCPs who completed the pre- and post-tests, their scores were 7.7 ± 1.7 and 8.8 ± 1.6, respectively, P = 0.003. Knowledge of appropriate anticoagulant administration in specific clinical situations was frequently inadequate, with approximately two-thirds of participants failing to adjust low-molecular-weight heparin doses in patients with renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: Education via didactic lectures resulted in a modest improvement of HCPs' knowledge of thromboprophylaxis guidelines. This supports the need for a multifaceted approach to improve the awareness and implementation of thromboprophylaxis guidelines.