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

• Original article (Public health administration) • Previous Articles     Next Articles

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


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