This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Poole, S. G. Articles by Dooley, M. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Poole, S. G. Articles by Dooley, M. J. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Establishing a baseline incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalised oncology patients

Pharmacy Department, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Michael Joseph Dooley, BPharm, Grad Dip Hosp Pharm

Pharmacy Department, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Victorian College of Pharmacy, Monash University, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

Objectives. To establish the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in oncology patients hospitalised at a tertiary referral adult cancer hospital and identify areas where intervention strategies may effectively reduce their impact.

Design. A prospective study was conducted in November and December 1998 at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute (PMCI), Melbourne, Australia. Pharmacists identified patients who had experienced an ADR contributing to the admission or occurring during the episode of care.

Outcome measures. An assessment was made of causality, as definite, probably or possibly. The severity of the ADR was assessed as mild, moderate or severe.

Results. Twenty-six admissions (9.6%) were related to drug therapy. One hundred and thirty-four ADRs occurred in 86 inpatient episodes of care (31.6% of admissions). One hundred and four ADRs (60.8%) were associated with active therapy for malignancy or infection. Supportive therapy, including analgesics and antiemetics, were implicated in 67 (39.2%) adverse events. Pharmacists rated the majority of reactions as definitely associated with the implicated drug and the majority of at least moderate severity.

Discussion. Drug therapy contributed to 9.6% of admissions. This is higher than in other Australian studies. The majority of ADRs identified were associated with active therapy for malignancy or infection. These adverse effects are not unexpected in the setting of aggressive therapy. Other potentially preventable ADRs may be overlooked in the context of the more severe and life-threatening events occurring simultaneously.

Conclusion. Approximately 37.5% of patients admitted to PMCI experienced an ADR. Many of these events may have been prevented using simple intervention strategies. There is an opportunity for clinical pharmacists to ensure preventive measures are instituted, thereby improving patient outcomes.

Key Words: Adverse drug reactions • oncology • incidence • admissions • pharmacists • preventability

Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, Vol. 6, No. 2, 55-59 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/107815520000600204


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?