Adverse drug reaction reporting: Attitudes of Australian hospital pharmacists and doctors

Yunita Nita, Kevin T. Batty, Richard J. Plumridge

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)


Aim: To determine the level of knowledge of the Australian adverse drag reaction (ADR) reporting system in hospital pharmacists and doctors, and the factors that influence ADR reporting. Method: A self-administered anonymous, postal questionnaire was sent to 803 doctors in Western Australia and 1323 hospital pharmacists between June and September 2001. Results: Response rates from doctors and pharmacists were 35% and 43%, respectively. Pharmacists were more likely than doctors to know how to report ADRs (98% vs 57%; p < 0.001) and to support screening of ADR reports before submission to the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (ADRAC) (80% vs 68%; p = 0.003). Factors that encouraged ADR reporting were serious or unusual ADRs or reactions to new drugs. Factors that discouraged ADR reporting were trivial or well known reactions, an uncertain association or insufficient time. Hypothetical ADRs (n = 10) that should have been reported to ADRAC were more likely to be reported by pharmacists (mean = 6.6; 95% CI = 6.4-6.7) than doctors (mean = 5.2; 95% CI = 4.9-5.5; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Hospital pharmacists are familiar with the ADR reporting system and are more likely than doctors to report ADRs to ADRAC. An appropriately resourced team approach could reduce barriers to ADR reporting and improve the quality and quantity of post-marketing surveillance data in Australia.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)9-14
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Pharmacy Practice and Research
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2005
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Adverse drug reaction reporting: Attitudes of Australian hospital pharmacists and doctors'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this