The knowledge and attitude of the Turkish community pharmacists toward pharmacovigilance in the Kadikoy district of Istanbul

Objective We investigated the knowledge and attitudes of community pharmacists towards pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Kadık?y district of Istanbul (Turkey). Setting The community pharmacies in Kadikoy. Kadikoy is one of the biggest districts of Istanbul and has the largest number of pharmacies. Kadikoy district was divided into two regions, the central and the peripheral. Method Between December 2005 and June 2006 we conducted a survey about the knowledge and attitude of community pharmacists (n = 219) using a face-to-face questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of questions about the sociodemographic characteristics of the pharmacists, their knowledge of pharmacovigilance and their attitudes towards ADR reporting. Main outcomes measured The knowledge of pharmacovigilance practice, ADR reporting compliance rates, reasons for not reporting ADR and perceptions of the Turkish community pharmacists on pharmacovigilance practice were evaluated. Results Although all 411 pharmacies in the Kadikoy district were visited, only 53% of the community pharmacists (n = 219) consented to participate in the study. Of those that did respond, only 17.2% of the pharmacists had any knowledge about ‘pharmacovigilance’. Sixty-five percent of the pharmacists stated that patients reported an ADR to them during the previous 12 months, and 21% of pharmacists reported to the concerned organizations. Our survey showed that only 7% actually reported an ADR to the national pharmacovigilance center. On the other hand, 89% of the pharmacists believed that the role of the pharmacist in ADR reporting was essential. Conclusion The results show that Turkish community pharmacists have poor knowledge about pharmacovigilance. There is an urgent need for educational programs to train them about pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting.     

Characteristics and quality of adverse drug reaction reports by pharmacists in Norway

PURPOSE: To evaluate the characteristics and quality of adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports submitted by pharmacists, and thereby assess the possible contribution of pharmacists to the spontaneous reporting system for ADRs in Norway. METHODS: An open, prospective study was conducted where dispensing pharmacists from 39 pharmacies were encouraged to report ADRs over a 3-month period. The submitted ADR reports were compared to reports by physicians from the same time period. All reports were evaluated for selected characteristics, that is distribution of Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification codes of suspected drugs, distribution of ADRs according to system-organ classes and the quality of the reports. RESULTS: A total of 118 reports covering 274 ADRs received from the pharmacists were compared to 109 ADR reports with 304 ADRs submitted by physicians. Pharmacists more often reported ADRs related to cardiovascular drugs, alimentary tract and metabolism drugs and respiratory drugs, whereas physicians more frequently reported ADRs related to musculoskeletal drugs and antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. ADRs reported by pharmacists more frequently described gastrointestinal reactions while physicians reported more ADRs in relation to the cardiovascular and blood system. Whereas 68% of the physicians' reports were classified as serious, only 5% of the pharmacists' reports were serious. More than 50% of the reports submitted by pharmacists concerned ADRs following a generic substitution, in contrast to only 2% of the physicians' reports. The pharmacists' reports were found to be of a lower documentation grade. However, there was no substantial difference in a subjective assessment of the quality of information in the reports submitted by the two categories of health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists submit valuable ADR reports which provide information complimentary to physicians' reports. This emphasises that pharmacist ADR reporting might constitute an important addition to the spontaneous reporting system.     

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pharmacists to adverse drug reaction reporting in Iran

Objective Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) are a major cause of patient morbidity and mortality. Spontaneous reporting of ADRs remains the cornerstone of pharmacovigilance and is important in maintaining patient safety. In order to determine whether our pharmacovigilance system could be improved, and identify reasons for under-reporting, a study to investigate the role of pharmacists in ADR reporting was performed in Shiraz. Setting: The pharmacies in Shiraz, capital of Fars province in Iran. Methods A questionnaire was prepared to investigate knowledge and attitude of pharmacists regarding ADR reporting. The questionnaire was given to 200 pharmacists who participated in a pharmacist association meeting. Main outcomes measured: The knowledge of pharmacovigilance practice, reasons for not reporting ADR, and perceptions of the Iranian pharmacists on pharmacovigilance practice were evaluated Results The response rate was 55% (n = 110). 29% of the respondents were not aware of the Iranian Pharmacovigilance Center. More than half of those responding felt that ADR reporting should be voluntary, while 26% felt it was a professional obligation. As for the purposes of ADR reporting scheme, 60% of the pharmacists falsely believed that monitoring ADR spontaneous reports aims at measuring the incidence of ADR. 42% of the pharmacists indicated that they have suspected an ADR without reporting it. Doubt about causality was the major reason for not reporting an ADR. Although our ADR center states that all suspected reactions to any drug on the market must be reported, only 17% of the respondents seemed to be aware of this responsibility. Conclusion Our pharmacists have little knowledge regarding the operation, purposes, and usefulness of ADR spontaneous reporting system. However, education and training will be important in maintaining and increasing ADR reports from pharmacists.     

Influence of pharmacists' attitudes on adverse drug reaction reporting : a case-control study in Portugal.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacists can play a fundamental role in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting, although the factors that affect underreporting among these professionals are unknown. The objectives of this study were to identify (i) professional or demographic characteristics; and (ii) attitudes associated with pharmacists' ADR reporting in northern Portugal. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study on a population of pharmacists employed in hospital and community pharmacies across Portugal's Northern Regional Health Authority catchment area in 2003. Cases (n=34) comprised pharmacists who had reported at least one ADR to the northern region's drug surveillance unit, and controls (n=280) were randomly sampled from pharmacists who had never reported an ADR. All were interviewed using a mail questionnaire. Most attitudes were based on Inman's 'seven deadly sins' and were measured using a continuous visual analogue scale. Answers were recorded in a range from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). Logistic regression was used to determine the ADR reporting adjusted odds ratio (OR) for a change in exposure corresponding to the interquartile range for each attitude. RESULTS: The response rate was 86.8%. Reporting probability proved higher among hospital versus community pharmacists (adjusted OR 20.0; 95 CI 3.3, 125.0; p<0.001). Attitudes to ADRs were strongly associated with reporting probability. Hence, an interquartile decrease in any of the following attitudes increased the probability of reporting by (i) 223% (95% CI 51, 595; p < 0.05) for "Really serious ADRs are well documented by the time a drug is marketed"; (ii) 240% (95% CI 89, 508; p=0.002) for "I would only report an ADR if I were sure that it was related to the use of a particular drug"; (iii) 316% (95% CI 44, 1104; p=0.010) for "It is only necessary to report serious or unexpected ADRs"; and (iv) 171% (95% CI 13, 549; p=0.020) for "I do not have time to think about the involvement of the drug or other causes in ADRs". CONCLUSIONS: ADR under-reporting is strongly associated with certain attitudes, possibly indicating that under-reporting could be minimised through educational interventions targeted at changing such attitudes. Pharmacists' ADR education must be improved and educational programmes should be focused on altering attitudes identified by the study as being associated with under-reporting. Our data also indicate that community pharmacists must be a priority target for this intervention.     

Pharmacist’s knowledge,practice and attitudes toward pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions reporting process

Background

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a major cause of drug related morbidity and mortality. Pharmacovigilance is the science that plays an essential role in the reduction of ADRs, thus the evolution and growth of this science are critical for effective and safe clinical practice.

Objectives

This study is considered the first study in the region to evaluate pharmacist’s knowledge, practice and attitudes toward ADRs reporting after establishing the national ADRs reporting center in Jordan.

Method

A cross sectional study was used to evaluate pharmacist knowledge and attitude toward ADRs reporting. A structured validated questionnaire was developed for this purpose and a total of 208 pharmacists were recruited to participate in this study.

Results

The majority of pharmacists have insufficient awareness and lack of knowledge about pharmacovigilance and ADRs reporting. Also the rate of reporting of ADRs was extremely poor. Several factors were found to discourage pharmacists from reporting ADRs, which include inadequate information available from the patient, unavailability of pharmacist ADRs form when needed, unawareness of the existence of the national ADRs reporting system. Also pharmacists think that ADRs are unimportant or they did not know how to report them.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that pharmacists have insufficient knowledge about the concept of pharmacovigilance and spontaneous ADRs reporting. On the other hand, pharmacists had positive attitudes toward pharmacovigilance, despite their little experience with ADRs reporting. Educational programs are needed to increase pharmacist’s role in the reporting process, and thus to have a positive impact on the overall patient caring process.     

Attitudes and knowledge of hospital pharmacists to adverse drug reaction reporting

AIMS: To investigate the attitudes of UK hospital pharmacists towards, and their understanding, of adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey of 600 randomly selected hospital pharmacists was conducted. RESULTS: The response rate was 53.7% (n = 322). A total of 217 Yellow Cards had been submitted to the CSM/MCA by 78 (25.6%) of those responding. Half of those responding felt that ADR reporting should be compulsory and over three-quarters felt it was a professional obligation. However, almost half were unclear as to what should be reported, while the time available in clinical practice and time taken to complete forms were deemed to be major deterrents to reporting. Pharmacists were not dissuaded from reporting by the need to consult a medical colleague or by the absence of a fee. Education and training had a significant influence on pharmacists' participation in the Yellow Card Scheme. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists have a reasonable knowledge and are supportive of the Yellow Card spontaneous ADR reporting scheme. However, education and training will be important in maintaining and increasing ADR reports from pharmacists.     

Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting by community pharmacists: preparedness and barriers

BackgroundAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) are undesired, unintended responses to drugs, and are significantly underreported. Pharmacists are drug experts recognized as custodians of drug safety, who are expected to be prepared for and knowledgeable about ADR reporting.ObjectivesTo identify Egyptian community pharmacists’ preparedness for and perceived barriers to spontaneous ADR reporting.MethodsThis cross-sectional study recruited a sample of community pharmacists across Egypt, who were invited to complete a self-administrated questionnaire during April 2020.ResultsA total of 923 pharmacists across Egypt responded to the questionnaire. Most pharmacists were knowledgeable about the definition of ADRs (93.9 %) and indicated they felt reporting ADRs benefits the patients (82.2%). Despite recognizing their public health value, only a small percentage of participants conveyed familiarity with the reporting process for both paper (19.2%) and electronic (30.4%) forms, indeed 56.6% of participants did not remember what the ADR report form looked like. Moreover, 75.4% of respondents said they felt that community pharmacies are not the right place for reporting, with 49% suggesting that reporting was the responsibility of physicians. However, only 32.1% reported having insufficient time being a barrier to ADR reporting.ConclusionsCommunity pharmacists in Egypt are not well prepared for spontaneous ADR reporting due to a lack of knowledge about the formal process and not acknowledging their responsibility, although time was not a major barrier. Therefore, this highlights a clear opportunity for improvement likely involving targeted education.     

Community pharmacists’ knowledge,behaviors and experiences about adverse drug reaction reporting in Saudi Arabia

Objective

To assess community pharmacists’ knowledge, behaviors and experiences relating to Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) reporting in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated self-administered questionnaire. A convenience sample of 147 community pharmacists working in community pharmacies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Results

The questionnaire was distributed to 147 pharmacists, of whom 104 responded to the survey, a 70.7% response rate. The mean age of participants was 29 years. The majority (n = 101, 98.1%) had graduated with a bachelorette degree and worked in chain pharmacies (n = 68, 66.7%). Only 23 (22.1%) said they were familiar with the ADR reporting process, and only 21 (20.2%) knew that pharmacists can submit ADR reports online. The majority of the participants (n = 90, 86.5%) had never reported ADRs. Reasons for not reporting ADRs most importantly included lack of awareness about the method of reporting (n = 22, 45.9%), misconception that reporting ADRs is the duty of physician and hospital pharmacist (n = 8, 16.6%) and ADRs in community pharmacies are simple and should not be reported (n = 8, 16.6%). The most common approach perceived by community pharmacists for managing patients suffering from ADRs was to refer him/her to a physician (n = 80, 76.9%).

Conclusion

The majority of community pharmacists in Riyadh have poor knowledge of the ADR reporting process. Pharmacovigilance authorities should take necessary steps to urgently design interventional programs in order to increase the knowledge and awareness of pharmacists regarding the ADR reporting process.     

Reporting natural health product related adverse drug reactions: is it the pharmacist's responsibility?

Objectives Herbal medicines and other natural health products (NHPs) are sold in Canadian pharmacies as over‐the‐counter products, yet there is limited information on their safety and adverse effect profile. Signals of safety concerns associated with medicines can arise through analysis of reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) submitted to national pharmacovigilance centres by health professionals, including pharmacists and the public. However, typically such systems experience substantial under‐reporting for NHPs. The objective of this paper is to explore pharmacists' experiences with and responses to receiving or identifying reports of suspected ADRs associated with NHPs from pharmacy customers. Methods A qualitative study in which in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 12 community pharmacists in Toronto, Canada. Key findings Pharmacists generally did not submit reports of adverse events associated with NHPs to the national ADR reporting system and cited several barriers, including lack of time, complexity of the reporting process and lack of knowledge about NHPs. Pharmacists who accepted responsibility for adverse event reporting appeared to have different perceptions of their professional role: they saw themselves as ‘knowledge generators’, contributing to overall healthcare knowledge. Conclusions Reporting behaviour for suspected ADRs associated with NHPs may be explained by a pharmacist's perception of his/her professional role and perceptions of the relative importance of generating knowledge to share in the wider system of health care.     

Attitudes of community pharmacists in the Netherlands towards adverse drug reaction reporting

Objective — To gain insight into the attitude and behaviour of community pharmacists in the Netherlands with respect to the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Method — A questionnaire survey was conducted among a stratified random sample of 200 community pharmacists from the membership list of the Royal Dutch Society for the Advancement of Pharmacy. The structured questionnaire covered knowledge of the Dutch ADR reporting system, attitudes to involvement in reporting ADRs and self‐reported behaviour. Demographic details were requested and used to assess the representativeness of responders in relation to the total population of Dutch community pharmacists. The number of self‐reported ADR reports was compared with those actually received by the nation's ADR centre. Key findings — The response rate was 73 per cent (n=147) after one reminder. Community pharmacists regarded the reporting of ADRs as an integral part of their professional duties and they did not report experiencing any major barriers to reporting. This is reflected in the frequency and number of ADR reports received by the national pharmacovigilance centre. Comparison of pharmacists' self‐reported numbers of ADR reports with actual reports received indicated that pharmacists overestimated the number of reports they made. The most frequently mentioned barriers to reporting were: the adverse effect assumed to be already known (32 per cent), the reporting procedure too time consuming (25 per cent), and uncertainty concerning the causal relationship between ADR and drug (25 per cent). Feedback was mentioned most commonly as the chief impetus for reporting, and this referred both to feedback on the report submitted and general feedback as provided in publications. Although consultation with the attending clinician before submitting a report is not compulsory in the Netherlands, 55 per cent of the pharmacists saw this as an important aspect in the reporting process. Conclusions — Community pharmacists in the Netherlands are knowledgeable about reporting ADRs and highly motivated to do so. This positive attitude towards reporting adverse events is based on the established tradition of pharmacist reporting in the Netherlands.     

Factors that influence under-reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions among community pharmacists in a Spanish region.

BACKGROUND: The spontaneous reporting system is the most efficient warning system of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Pharmacists can play an important role in the detection and reporting of ADRs. The factors that affect under-reporting among these professionals are unknown in Spain. OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors that influence community pharmacists' ADR under-reporting in Navarra, a Northern Spanish region. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted on a population of 802 community pharmacists working in Navarra. Cases were pharmacists who had reported at least two ADRs to the region's drug surveillance unit between 2003 and 2005 and who agreed to participate in the study (18/20; 90%). A random sample of 60 controls was selected from the 762 pharmacists who had not reported any ADR during the same period of time. RESULTS: Factors positively associated with ADR reporting were age, years of work experience as a pharmacist, participation in educational activities related to the detection and resolution of drug-related problems, the habit of detecting ADRs as part of pharmacists' duties, having the basic knowledge needed to report ADRs, and disagreement with the common belief among healthcare professionals that 'to report an ADR it is necessary to be sure that the reaction is related to the use of a particular drug'. The most frequently mentioned reasons for not reporting ADRs were the ADR is not serious, the ADR is already known, uncertainty concerning the causal relationship between the ADR and the drug, forgetting to report the ADR and a lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists' knowledge, beliefs, behaviour and motivation play an important role in ADR reporting. Under-reporting might be improved through activities focused on modifying such factors.     

Knowledge and awareness of adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance practices among healthcare professionals in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah,Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) are scantly reported with poor contribution by healthcare professionals worldwide and in particular in developing countries. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and awareness of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reporting and pharmacovigilance system among healthcare professionals in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah hospitals, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A questionnaire was designed addressing; awareness of ADRs, knowledge of pharmacovigilance system, availability of ADRs reporting system, patient counseling about ADRs and documentation of ADRs. The questionnaire was distributed to randomly selected healthcare professionals (n = 585) such as physicians, pharmacists, nurses and pharmacists’ technicians of hospitals. Completed questionnaires were collected and data were analyzed. Data were expressed in number as well as percentage. Of the 585 questionnaires circulated, a total of 384 healthcare professionals responded. Healthcare professional categories involved in the study were 148 physicians, 37 pharmacists, 158 nurses and 41 pharmacist technicians. The percent of the respondents who accepted to enroll in the study was 65.64%. Most of the respondents were unable to correctly define the pharmacovigilance term, but they were aware of ADRs. The awareness among healthcare professionals of the national pharmacovigilance system was 39.6%. Pharmacists had a good knowledge of pharmacovigilance and ADRs terminology and showed a more positive attitude to report ADRs. A greater number of the healthcare professionals were aware of ADRs reporting, but practically it is not implemented in hospitals. Most hospitals had follow-up documentation systems, but did not include ADRs reporting. There was no distinct pharmacovigilance system in place. Our study has demonstrated a lack of knowledge and awareness of pharmacovigilance and ADRs reporting among healthcare professionals in hospitals. The poor knowledge of ADRs reporting emphasized the urgent need to implement the appropriate strategies to improve the awareness of pharmacovigilance practices and ADRs reporting in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah hospitals.     

Improved reporting of adverse drug reactions

A program using satellite pharmacists to improve adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting in an 1100-bed teaching hospital is described. Because relying on physicians to report ADRs had met with little success (only six reports in seven years), the pharmacy department proposed that pharmacists in satellite pharmacies on patient-care units be called upon to identify and report ADRs. To begin this program, an ADR team composed of a physician, pharmacist, and nurse made weekly rounds of the satellite pharmacies to assist pharmacists in identifying potential ADRs. The FDA definition of an ADR was adopted. Also, inservice education programs about ADR reporting were conducted for pharmacists and nurses. Currently, suspected ADRs are reported to the satellite pharmacist, who forwards a completed drug reaction report form to the assistant director for clinical pharmacy services. Reports are discussed quarterly by the ADR subcommittee of the pharmacy and therapeutics committee; the sub-committee members determine whether any follow-up action is needed. In the first three years after implementation of this program, 306 ADRs were reported; 90% of the reports were filed by pharmacists. An ADR reporting system based on reporting by staff pharmacists has been effective in increasing the number of reported reactions and pharmacist involvement in monitoring patients for ADRs.     

A cross sectional pilot study on assessing the knowledge,attitude and behavior of community pharmacists to adverse drug reaction related aspects in the Sultanate of Oman

Background and objectives

Adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring and reporting requires a multidisciplinary approach and pharmacists have a major role to play in it. The present pilot study was conducted to assess the knowledge, attitude and behavior of community pharmacists to ADR related aspects in the Sultanate of Oman.

Methods

A self-administered questionnaire comprising of 21 questions were distributed to a random sample of pharmacists in two Governorates in the Sultanate of Oman. It assessed the knowledge of pharmacists on some of the selected basic aspects of drug safety. Further, the knowledge and attitude of community pharmacists toward ADR reporting and their behavior on ADR related aspects were assessed. A scoring scheme was used to estimate the median total score of participants for various parameters. Obtained scores were correlated with the demographics of the respondents.

Results

A total of 107 community pharmacists participated in the survey giving a response rate of 72.3%. The responses of the pharmacists to the questions on the drug safety of individual drugs were incorrect for some important and practical questions. Consequently, total median score corresponding to these questions was 5 (Inter Quartile Range, IQR 2) out of a possible maximum score of 9, which was below the acceptable score. Total median score based on knowledge, attitude and behavior was 38 (IQR 8) out of a possible maximum of 50 which shows a moderate score. Lack of awareness on how to report an ADR and concern that the report may be wrong were the most common factors discouraging pharmacists from reporting ADRs. Qualification as well as years of experience were the only demographic parameters which had an influence on the score obtained by the pharmacists.

Conclusions

Even though the pharmacists had an acceptable knowledge, attitude and behavior on ADR reporting and related aspects, a good number of them had below than acceptable knowledge on drug safety related aspects of specific drugs. Educational programs have to be continued to generate awareness on how to report ADR and stimulate pharmacists’ more active participation in the pharmacovigilance program. There is a genuine need to have training programs to improve the knowledge of pharmacists on ADR related aspects which are of benefit on a daily basis which could greatly have an impact on patient safety.     

A distance-learning programme in pharmacovigilance linked to educational credits is associated with improved reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions via the UK yellow card scheme

AIMS: The effect of a distance-learning package linked to educational credits on the rate and quality of spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting by general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists in Wales was investigated. METHODS: In April 2000, 477 GPs and 261 pharmacists enrolled in the 12 month programme. RESULTS: The number and quality of yellow card reports improved compared with those of a control region in England (Northern Region). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that an educational initiative in drug safety linked to incentives may be associated with a significant but perhaps short-lived improvement in the rate and quality of ADR reporting.     

Factors that facilitate reporting of adverse drug reactions by pharmacists in Saudi Arabia

Objectives: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a pervasive global problem, and its management is integral to patient safety and healthcare quality. Pharmacists play a pivotal role in monitoring and reporting ADRs, which has a direct impact on patient care. The aim of this study was to identify potential factors that facilitate pharmacists in community and hospital settings to report ADRs.

Methods: A cross-sectional, online survey using a validated questionnaire was administered to pharmacists working in community and hospital pharmacies in Saudi Arabia.

Results: 1,717 community and 153 hospital pharmacists participated in this study. Only 10.2% and 26.8% of community and hospital pharmacists, respectively, admitted ever reporting an ADR. The most reported factors that may facilitate ADRs reporting have included ongoing improvements in therapeutic knowledge about ADRs, attending educational programs with continuous medical education credits, the seriousness of the experienced ADRs and accessibility to patients’ medical profile. The impact of peers by seeing colleagues reporting ADRs and ADRs due to herbal or traditional medicine were the least important factors reported by pharmacists.

Conclusion: The study identified factors that can effectively address the under-reporting of ADRs by pharmacists. A multi-stakeholder, multi-pronged approach of ADR reporting is needed to develop greater awareness of this issue among pharmacists.     

The role of hospital and community pharmacists in pharmacovigilance

In this paper, we give an overview of the role pharmacists actually have and could have in collecting reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and more widely in pharmacovigilance.In the literature, several ways are mentioned in which the pharmacist, both the community pharmacist and the hospital pharmacist, can contribute to the safe use of drugs. In addition to their responsibilities regarding drug dispensing and compliance, they can have a substantial role in ADR reporting.Especially, hospital pharmacists can play a significant role in ADR reporting because the most serious adverse drug events occur in hospitals, and ADRs account for a substantial proportion of hospital admissions.Community pharmacists, however, can also play an important role in ADR reporting. This is, for example, the case in the Netherlands where community pharmacists contribute substantially, both in numbers and in quality of ADR reports.The contribution of the pharmacist to pharmacovigilance should, however, not be limited to ADR reporting. The various pharmaceutical disciplines could also greatly enhance our understanding of the nature of ADRs. If those involved in pharmaceutical disciplines can rise to this challenge, they will significantly help deepen our insights into ADRs.