Objective: Contrast media side effects range from minor ones such as itching and vomiting to life-threatening ones such as hypotension and loss of consciousness. The purpose of this study was to determine how contrast media side effects are actually managed in hospitals nationwide, as well as to identify opportunities for the pharmacy department to be involved in contrast media administration, and pharmacists’ awareness of the risk of contrast media side effects. Methods: A self-administered, unmarked questionnaire survey was conducted in the pharmacy departments of 2,000 hospitals nationwide. The survey asked about the existence of internal rules and manuals regarding contrast media at each facility, how to deal with patients at risk for side effects, opportunities for intervention with patients by the pharmacy department, and opportunities for discussion among pharmacists and other professionals regarding the administration of contrast media. Results: Of the 2,000 facilities, 96 responded to the questionnaire, among which 69 had internal regulations or manuals. In those with manuals, the manuals stipulated measures such as not administering contrast media or administering premedication in the case of patients with a history of contrast media side effects. In facilities where the manual recommended premedication, it was found that premedication was administered in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Regarding the role of the pharmacy department, it was found that intervention in all items related to risk factors for adverse drug reactions was achieved for only about 10% of the outpatients. Conclusion: This study revealed that many facilities are involved in the management of contrast media side effects. The results indicate that there is scope for pharmacy departments to intervene more proactively in outpatient settings to ensure appropriate contrast media use in the future.

Objective: We surveyed community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists on the usefulness of electronic package inserts since they replaced paper-based package insert information for prescription drugs.Methods: We conducted a questionnaire survey with 1,258 community pharmacists and 126 hospital pharmacists on how they search for package insert information, handle data revisions, use paper or electronic media, and their opinions on work efficiency.Results: Questionnaire responses were obtained from 178 community pharmacists (response rate: 14.1%) and 82 hospital pharmacists (response rate: 65.1%). Among respondents, 98.9% and 98.8% of community and hospital pharmacists used personal computers connected to the internet, and 30.9% and 56.1% of community and hospital pharmacists used personal digital assistants. As for package insert medium, 79.2% and 61.8% of community pharmacists used paper and electronic media for package inserts while 50.0% and 98.8% of hospital pharmacists used paper and electronic media. To nine of ten questions about work efficiency, more than half of the hospital pharmacists reported that efficiency increased with electronic package inserts. More than half of community and hospital pharmacists reported that revision made to electronic data were more quickly reflected in practice.Conclusion: The survey revealed that community pharmacists prefer paper-based package inserts, while hospital pharmacists prefer electronic package inserts to check package insert information. The results also showed that using electronic package inserts was perceived to improve work efficiency. Furthermore, personal digital assistants will become important in promoting electronic package inserts.