Table 2.
Features of adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting policies in some New Zealand District Health Boards (DHBs)
| Components for an ideal in-house ADR program (ASHP 1995) | Nr of DHBs |
|---|---|
| Provides a definition of an ADR | 2 |
| Classifies ADRs according to type | 1 |
| Uses detection identifiers (ie, triggers that signal an investigation is warranted for ADR), such as emergency box usage, use of medicine to treat a symptom rather than a disease (eg, antihistamines) | 2 |
| Provides management guidance for ADRs | 3 |
| Evaluates all ADRs individually (ie, all reports of suspected ADRs are reviewed and differentiated from obvious medication errors) | 3 |
| Includes probability assessment (ie, by the use of scales or algorithms to determine the likelihood that the event is medicine related) | 0 |
| Provides severity ranking for all ADRs | 0 |
| Addresses the multidisciplinary responsibility for reporting | 6 |
| Uses in-house reporting forms (other than or in addition to those of CARM) | 7 |
| Tracks the pattern and incidence of ADRs within the DHB, which are reviewed by relevant committees (eg, P&T), for action and feedback | 0 |
| Recommends pharmacist's involvement in the ADR reporting procedure | 5 |
| Has provisions for follow-up reporting of all reported ADRs (eg, documentation in medical notes, patient informed, medic alert bracelet etc) | 6 |
| Has provisions to notify the patient's general practitioner about the ADR | 5 |
| Has provisions for further notification to CARM | 5 |
Abbreviations: CARM, Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring; P&T, pharmacy and therapeutics.