Potentialities and limitations of the Sentinel Network to improve the post-marketing/post-use monitoring of products subject to health surveillance adopted by Anvisa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22239/2317-269x.02089Keywords:
Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions, Health Monitoring, Patient Safety, Marketed Products SurveillanceAbstract
Introduction: Hospitals are essential for the universal coverage of any health system, as well as sources of valuable information on adverse events and technical complaints of products subjects to health surveillance. Objective: To identify the potentialities and limitations of the Sentinel Network to improve post-marketing/post-use monitoring of products subject to health surveillance adopted by Anvisa. Method: A descriptive quantitative study that used data from a national administrative survey applied to the Sentinel Network, which was conducted between August 4 and September 2, 2021, by the Anvisa. Data were collected using an electronic structured questionnaire. Statistical analyzes were performed in the Gretl-2022a software, including the calculation of absolute and relative frequencies, medians, and interquartile ranges. Results: A response rate of 69.1% (181/262) was obtained. Among the potentialities, the following stand out: acting as a center for study, teaching, and research of health establishments (n = 145; 80.1%), presence of implanted electronic medical records (n = 142; 78.4%) and the development of initiatives focused on innovation involving risk management of health products (n = 94; 52.0%). As one of the limitations, health establishments that do not have any current excellence/quality certifications predominate (n = 104; 57.5%). Conclusions: The Sentinel Network has several potentialities and limitations that affect the post-marketing/post-use monitoring of products subject to health surveillance. Identifying them, as was the objective of this study, demonstrates the need to promote actions that offer the possibility of expanding the potentialities and mitigate the limiting factors to the improvement of post-marketing/post-use monitoring adopted by Anvisa.
Downloads
References
Wunsch G, Gourbin C. Mortality, morbidity and health in developed societies: a review of data sources. Genus. 2018;74(1):2. doi:10.1186/s41118-018-0027-9
Yen CW, Lee EP, Cheng SC, Hsia SH, Huang JL, Lee J. Household cleaning products poisoning in a pediatric emergency center: A 10- year cross-sectional study and literature review. Pediatr Neonatol. 2021;62(6):638-646. doi:10.1016/j.pedneo.2021.05.026
Ssemugabo C, Halage AA, Neebye RM, et al. Prevalence, Circumstances, and Management of Acute Pesticide Poisoning in Hospitals in Kampala City, Uganda. Environ Health Insights. 2017;11:1178630217728924. doi:10.1177/1178630217728924
Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):15-19. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7456.15
Martins A, Giordani F, Rozenfeld S. Adverse drug events among adult inpatients: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2014;39(6). doi:10.1111/jcpt.12204
de Vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA. The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17(3):216-223. doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.023622
Vitorino M, Aguiar P, Sousa P. In-hospital adverse drug events: analysis of trend in Portuguese public hospitals. Cad Saude Publica. 2020;36(3):e00056519. doi:10.1590/0102-311x00056519
Laatikainen O, Miettunen J, Sneck S, Lehtiniemi H, Tenhunen O, Turpeinen M. The prevalence of medication-related adverse events in inpatients-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;73(12):1539-1549. doi:10.1007/s00228-017-2330-3
Cano FG, Rozenfeld S. Adverse drug events in hospitals: a systematic review. Cad Saude Publica. 2009;25 Suppl 3:S360-372. doi:10.1590/s0102-311x2009001500003
Porte PJ, Smits M, Verweij LM, de Bruijne MC, van der Vleuten CPM, Wagner C. The Incidence and Nature of Adverse Medical Device Events in Dutch Hospitals: A Retrospective Patient Record Review Study. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(8):e1719-e1725. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000620
Teixeira APCP, Leitão LO, Barbosa PFT, Cammarota DMOT, Rocha VLC. Perfil de estabelecimentos de saúde brasileiros participantes da Rede Sentinela. Vigilância Sanitária Em Debate Soc Ciênc Tecnol. 2017;5(4):88-93. doi:10.22239/2317-269X.01006
Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária – Anvisa. Resolução RDC No 51, de 29 de Setembro de 2014. Dispõe Sobre a Rede Sentinela Para o Sistema Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Diário Oficial União. 1 out 2014.
Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Instrução Normativa no 8, de 29 de setembro de 2014. Dispõe sobre os critérios para adesão, participação e permanência dos serviços de saúde na Rede Sentinela.
Mota DM, Vigo Á, Kuchenbecker R de S. [Adverse drug reactions reported to the Brazilian pharmacovigilance system from 2008 to 2013: descriptive study]. Cad Saude Publica. 2019;35(8):e00148818. doi:10.1590/0102-311X00148818
Paula DG de, Francisco MR, Freitas JD, et al. Hand hygiene in high-complexity sectors as an integrating element in the combat of Sars-CoV-2. Rev Bras Enferm. 2020;73(suppl 2):e20200316. doi:10.1590/0034-7167-2020-0316
Trifirò G, Crisafulli S. A New Era of Pharmacovigilance: Future Challenges and Opportunities. Front Drug Saf Regul. 2022;2. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fdsfr.2022.866898
Mota DM, Vigo Á, Kuchenbecker R de S. Evolução e elementos-chave do sistema de farmacovigilância do Brasil: uma revisão de escopo a partir da criação da Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Cad Saúde Pública. 2018;34. doi:10.1590/0102-311X00000218
Western Michigan University. Data Collection Through Surveys Policy. Data and Systems Governance. Published September 1, 2015. Accessed June 3, 2022. https://wmich.edu/datagovernance/policies/surveypolicy
Cadastro Nacional de Estabelecimentos de Saúde (CNES). Accessed May 25, 2022. https://cnes.datasus.gov.br/pages/consultas.jsp
De Negri Filho A, Barbosa Z. O papel dos hospitais nas Redes de Atenção à Saúde. Consensus. 2014;11(abril, maio e junho). Accessed June 2, 2022. https://www.conass.org.br/biblioteca/pdf/revistaconsensus_11.pdf
Griffith University - Queesland Australia. I’m conducting an administrative survey. Do I need ethics approval? Current Students. Published December 16, 2020. Accessed June 3, 2022. https://studenthelp.secure.griffith.edu.au/app/answers/detail/a_id/4262/~/i%E2%80%99m-conducting-an-administrative-survey.-do-i-need-ethics-approval%3F
Whicher D, Wu AW. Ethics Review of Survey Research: A Mandatory Requirement for Publication? The Patient. 2015;8(6):477-482. doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0141-0
de Hoon SEM, Hek K, van Dijk L, Verheij RA. Adverse events recording in electronic health record systems in primary care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17:163. doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0565-7
Feng C, Le D, McCoy AB. Using Electronic Health Records to Identify Adverse Drug Events in Ambulatory Care: A Systematic Review. Appl Clin Inform. 2019;10(1):123-128. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1677738
Li M, Chen S, Lai Y, et al. Integrating Real-World Evidence in the Regulatory Decision-Making Process: A Systematic Analysis of Experiences in the US, EU, and China Using a Logic Model. Front Med. 2021;8. Accessed June 27, 2022. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmed.2021.669509
Polisena J, Jayaraman G. Use of real-world data and evidence for medical devices: a qualitative study of key informant interviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(6):579-584. doi:10.1017/S0266462320000859
OECD, World Health Organization. Improving Healthcare Quality in Europe: Characteristics, Effectiveness and Implementation of Different Strategies. OECD; 2019. doi:10.1787/b11a6e8f-en
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. Accessed June 24, 2022. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=822.3
Clarice Alegre Petramale, Alessandra Torres Willer, Beatriz MacDowell Soares, et al. Projeto hospitais sentinela: uma estratégia de vigilância para a pós-comercialização de produtos de saúde. Accessed June 27, 2022. https://repositorio.enap.gov.br/bitstream/1/483/1/Projeto%20Hospitais%20Sentinelas.pdf
Michaelidou N, Dibb S. Using email questionnaires for research: Good practice in tackling non-response. J Target Meas Anal Mark. 2006;14(4):289-296. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740189
Draugalis JR, Coons SJ, Plaza CM. Best Practices for Survey Research Reports: A Synopsis for Authors and Reviewers. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(1):11.
Fincham JE. Response Rates and Responsiveness for Surveys, Standards, and the Journal. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(2):43.
Kazzazi F, Haggie R, Forouhi P, Kazzazi N, Malata C. Utilizing the Total Design Method in medicine: maximizing response rates in long, non-incentivized, personal questionnaire postal surveys. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2018;Volume 9:169-172. doi:10.2147/PROM.S156109
Oliveira CM de, Cruz MM. Sistema de Vigilância em Saúde no Brasil: avanços e desafios. Saúde Em Debate. 2015;39:255-267. doi:10.1590/0103-110420151040385
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Daniel Marques Mota, Dolly Milena Ovando Talavera Cammarota, Leonardo Oliveira Leitão, Ana Paula Coelho Penna Teixeira, Viviane Vilela Marques Barreiros, Fabiana Rodrigues Gomes, Lucia Eichenberg Surita, Suzie Marie Teixeira Gomes (Autor)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT ALLOWANCE The author (s) hereinafter designated as the ASSIGNOR hereby assign and transfer, free of charge, the ownership of the copyrights related to this ARTICLE to the Vigilância Sanitária em Debate: Sociedade, Ciência & Tecnologia (Health Surveillance under Debate: Society, Science & Technology) – Visa em Debate, represented by FUNDAÇÃO OSWALDO CRUZ, established at Av. Brasil, nº 4365, Manguinhos, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, CEP 21045-900, under the conditions set out below: (a) The terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement shall apply to the following: 1. The ASSIGNOR declares that they s(he) is (are) the author (s) and owner (s) of the copyrighted property of the ARTICLE submitted. 2. The ASSIGNOR declares that the ARTICLE does not infringe the copyrights and / or other property rights of third parties, that the disclosure of images (if any) has been authorized and that they s(he) assume(s) full moral and / or property liability for its content, before third parties. 3. THE ASSIGNOR assigns and transfers all copyrights relating to the ARTICLE to the ASSIGNEE, especially the rights of editing, publication, translation into another language and reproduction by any process or technique. The ASSIGNEE becomes the exclusive owner of the rights related to the ARTICLE, and any reproduction, totally or partially, is prohibited in any other means of publicity, printed or electronic, without prior written authorization from the ASSIGNEE. 4. The assignment is free and, therefore, there will be no remuneration for the use of the ARTICLE by the ASSIGNEE.