Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Proceed order?

Export
  • 1
    ISSN: 1432-1041
    Keywords: Key words Adverse drug event reporting ; Hospitalized ; patients ; Source/relative value of reports
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Chemistry and Pharmacology , Medicine
    Notes: Abstract Objective: This study investigated the relative value of adverse drug events reported by doctors, nurses and patients. Methods: The study was conducted on a total of four wards: the paediatric and internal medicine wards (including geriatric patients) of two peripheral hospitals in the Netherlands. Adverse drug events were collected by spontaneous reporting (doctor and nurse reports) and by daily ward visits, during which the patients were interviewed by a hospital pharmacist (patient reports). Criteria for relative value of the reported adverse drug events were the number of potentially serious reactions, the number of reactions not mentioned in the patient information leaflet and the number of reactions reported to new drugs (5 years or less on the Dutch market). No formal causality assessment was applied. Results: Over a period of 2 months in 1996 (Hospital I) and 2 months in 1997 (Hospital II) a total of 620 patients were included in the study and adverse drug events were reported in 179 (29%) of these cases. Doctors reported a statistically significant larger number of serious (26% of all doctor reports; odds ratio (OR) 3.2; confidence interval (CI) 1.2–8.7) and unknown (39%; OR 2.5; CI 1.0–6.0) adverse drug events than patients themselves during the daily ward visit. Doctors also reported more serious and unknown adverse drug events than nurses. Adverse reactions to new drugs were reported during the daily ward visit only (8% of all daily ward visit reports). Conclusion: This study reconfirms that doctors are the main source for reports of serious and unknown adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. However, patients themselves seem to report more adverse reactions to new drugs (during the daily ward visit). By focusing on patients using new drugs, the daily ward visit might become cost-effective. This needs to be explored in future studies.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Signatur Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    ISSN: 1573-739X
    Keywords: Pentamidine ; High-performance liquid chromatography ; High volume air sampling ; Personal air sampling ; Sediment samples ; Environmental contamination ; Health-care workers ; Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome ; Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia ; Human immunodeficiency virus
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Chemistry and Pharmacology
    Notes: Abstract In our hospital safety guidelines are available for the handling of pentamidine in the day-care department, but no safety ventilation cabin is used because only one patient a day has been treated. The number of patients to be treated, however, is growing, resulting in the need to treat more than one patient a day. To determine the environmental contamination and exposure of health-care workers during and after aerosolised pentamidine treatment of more than one patient with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome a day a high-performance liquid chromatographic method is used for the detection and quantification of pentamidine. High volume air samples were taken before, immediately after and the day after a treatment session of up to three patients. Also, sediment samples and personal air samples close to the mouth of the health-care workers were taken. Immediately after a treatment session the air in the room contains 1.0–99.7 μg pentamidine per m3 of air. Before and the morning after treatment no pentamidine could be detected in the air. Sediment samples vary in detectable amounts of pentamidine from 〈5 to 1165 ng pentamidine/cm2. The personal air samples also show a large variation in quantities of pentamidine: 〈5–170 ng a filter. When large amounts of pentamidine in the high volume air samples are found high amounts of pentamidine on the sediment samples and the personal air samples are found as well. This means that the patients treated should be instructed well on how to use the nebulizer correctly and be monitored during treatment. Additional safety measures (for example the use of a safety ventilation cabin) should be taken when more than one patient is treated a day.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Signatur Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...