Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: a retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals
- PMID: 20701410
- DOI: 10.2165/11536510-000000000-00000
Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: a retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals
Abstract
Background: In the UK, spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by healthcare professionals has been in operation since 1964 through the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS). From 2005, patients themselves have been able to submit Yellow Card reports.
Objective: To compare patient characteristics, suspected drugs and suspected ADRs reported by patients with those reported by healthcare professionals using the YCS.
Design and setting: Retrospective observational study in the UK.
Methods: Participants were patients reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), either by themselves, a representative or a healthcare professional, as having one or more suspected ADRs between October 2005 and September 2007. The main outcome measures were ADRs and time taken to report.
Results: In total, 26 129 Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals were received from the MHRA for the 2-year study period (19.8% patient and 80.2% healthcare professional). More Yellow Card reports were made for female than male patients (p < 0.001). Patients reported a significantly higher number of suspected ADRs per report than healthcare professionals (median [interquartile range {IQR}] of 3 [2-5] vs 2 [1-3], respectively; p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patient reports (16.1%) contained more than one suspect drug than healthcare professional reports (9%; p < 0.001). Healthcare professional reports had a higher proportion of ADRs that caused hospitalization (18.8% vs 12.9%), were life threatening (11.1% vs 6.2%) or caused death (2.6% vs 0.7%) than patient reports (all p < 0.001). Patient reporters took a significantly longer time to report their reaction than healthcare professionals (median [IQR] of 104 [27-463] vs 28 [13-75] days respectively; p < 0.001). Direct comparisons of the seriousness of the ADRs were not possible because of important differences between patient and healthcare professional versions of the Yellow Cards.
Conclusions: This is the first substantial, published study in the UK to compare Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals. Whilst patients report more suspected ADRs to more suspect drugs than healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals tend to report more serious reactions that result in hospitalization, are life threatening or cause death. Further research is required to investigate the extent to which the extra information from patient reporters contributes to signal identification when assessing drug safety.
Similar articles
-
Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK 'Yellow Card Scheme': literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys.Health Technol Assess. 2011 May;15(20):1-234, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta15200. Health Technol Assess. 2011. PMID: 21545758 Review.
-
How patient reporters identify adverse drug reactions: a qualitative study of reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme.Drug Saf. 2011 May 1;34(5):429-36. doi: 10.2165/11589320-000000000-00000. Drug Saf. 2011. PMID: 21513365
-
How do patients contribute to signal detection? : A retrospective analysis of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in the UK's Yellow Card Scheme.Drug Saf. 2013 Mar;36(3):199-206. doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0021-2. Drug Saf. 2013. PMID: 23444232
-
First French experience of ADR reporting by patients after a mass immunization campaign with Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic vaccines: a comparison of reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals.Drug Saf. 2012 Oct 1;35(10):845-54. doi: 10.1007/BF03261980. Drug Saf. 2012. PMID: 22967189
-
Reported paediatric adverse drug reactions in the UK 2000-2009.Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012 Mar;73(3):437-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2011.04113.x. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012. PMID: 21988288 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Regarding Abnormal Behavior After Oseltamivir Use in Children as Reported by Consumers or Healthcare Professionals.Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021 Mar 4;15:533-541. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S292072. eCollection 2021. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021. PMID: 33692617 Free PMC article.
-
ADR Reporting by the General Public: Lessons Learnt from the Dutch and Swedish Systems.Drug Saf. 2015 Apr;38(4):337-47. doi: 10.1007/s40264-015-0264-1. Drug Saf. 2015. PMID: 25627832 Review.
-
A cross-sectional study: comparison of public perceptions of adverse drug reaction reporting and monitoring in eastern and western China.BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Mar 8;22(1):318. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07720-0. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022. PMID: 35260158 Free PMC article.
-
Does patient reporting lead to earlier detection of drug safety signals? A retrospective comparison of time to reporting between patients and healthcare professionals in a global database.Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1514-1524. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13576. Epub 2018 Apr 19. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018. PMID: 29522255 Free PMC article.
-
Promoting Patient Engagement in Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting: A Novel Approach Utilizing Set Induction-Based Skill Questionnaires.Curr Drug Saf. 2025;20(3):329-333. doi: 10.2174/0115748863308469240819042052. Curr Drug Saf. 2025. PMID: 39253921
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical