上海交通大学学报（医学版）

›› 2011, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (5): 648-.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2011.05.026

• 论著（卫生事业管理） • 上一篇    下一篇

上海市部分三级医院临床医师药品不良反应认知度调查分析

阎仲珩1, 黄登笑2, 黄淇敏3   

  1. 上海交通大学 |医学院附属第三人民医院 1.门诊办公室, 2.医务部, 3.卫生管理教研室, 上海 201900
  • 出版日期:2011-05-28 发布日期:2011-05-27
  • 通讯作者: 黄淇敏, 电子信箱: qiminh@126.com。
  • 作者简介:阎仲珩（1981—）, 男, 住院医师, 硕士生；电子信箱: yanzhongheng@sina.com。
  • 基金资助:

    上海市教委基金(09YS109)；上海市宝山区科委基金(08-E-2)；上海交通大学医学院基金(YW1001)

Investigation and analysis of clinicians' cognition of adverse drug reaction in partial first class hospitals of Shanghai

YAN Zhong-heng1, HUANG Deng-xiao2, HUANG Qi-min3   

  1. 1.Office of Out-patient Clinic, 2.Medical Department, 3.Department of Health Management, the Third People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 201900, China
  • Online:2011-05-28 Published:2011-05-27
  • Supported by:

    Shanghai Education Committee Foundation, 09YS109；Foundation from Science and Technology Committee of Baoshan District, Shanghai, 08-E-2；Foundation from Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, YW1001

PDF (PC)

1807

摘要：

目的 研究临床一线医师对药品不良反应（ADR）相关知识和报告工作的认知情况。方法 选取上海交通大学医学院10家附属医院的临床一线医师（N=370）作为样本，进行随机问卷调查。调查问卷的内容：第一部分为调查对象的基本资料；第二部分为ADR基本认识调查；第三部分为ADR上报工作认知度调查。结果 有效问卷为347份，有效率为96.12%。22.8%的医师正确知道ADR原因，17.6%的医师能从各种药品损害事件中正确判断出ADR。58.8%的医师对常见ADR的判断有一定把握，31.1%的医师对新的或未报导过的ADR判断有一定把握。52.2%的医师知道发现ADR需要上报，49.6%的医师知道上报ADR是医务人员的法定义务，22.8%的医师知道ADR需上报至不良反应监测中心，11.0%的医师知道ADR上报时限。ADR上报工作整体认知得分中，超过3分者仅占17.5％。对于所遇到的ADR，18.7%的医师全部进行了上报，医师漏报原因主要为不太了解上报程序（46.0%）、工作繁忙（37.6%）、认为太常见而没有必要（28.0%）。结论 临床医师对ADR基本知识有一定了解，但掌握并不一致，对上报工作的总体认知度不高。应加强对临床一线医师的宣传、教育和培训，增强上报意识，提高ADR判断水平，以提升ADR监测报告质量。

关键词: 药品不良反应, 临床医师, 认知度, 调查分析

Abstract:

Objective To investigate the primary clinicians' cognition of adverse drug reactions (ADR) knowledge and reporting work of clinicians. Methods Three hundred and seventy primary clinicians of 10 affiliated hospitals of Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine were selected for a random questionnaire survey. The questionnaires were composed of three parts: the basic data of investigated objectives (part one), cognition of ADR knowledge (part two) and cognition of ADR reporting work (part three). Results There were 347 effective questionnaires, and the effective rate was 96.12%. A total of 22.8% of clinicians knew the cause of ADR correctly, 17.6% could correctly determine ADR from a variety of drug damaging events,  58.8% had a certain degree of confidence when judging the common ADR, and 31.1% had a certain degree of confidence to judge the new or unreported ADR. Besides, 52.2% of clinicians were aware that ADR needed to be reported, 49.6% had cognition that reporting ADR was the obligation of medical staffs, 22.8% knew that ADR needed to be reported to the Adverse Reaction Monitoring Center, and 11.0% were aware of the deadline of reporting ADR. For the cognition scoring of reporting ADR, only 17.5% of clinicians got more than 3 points. When encountering ADR, 18.7% of the clinicians reported all the cases. The main reasons for omission of reporting procedures were unfamiliarity of reporting procedures (46.0%), busy working and lack of time (37.6%) and thinking it unnecessary to report (28.0%). Conclusion Clinicians have some basic understanding of ADR, with inconsistent understanding degree and poor familiarity with the unitary reporting work. Clinicians should learn more from publicity, education and training about ADR, enhance awareness of reporting work, improve the level of ADR judgment, and improve the quality of ADR monitoring report.

Key words: adverse drug reaction, clinician, awareness level, opinion survey