The Medication Guides for Patients (MGPs) are being offered as information on prescription drugs for patients by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). The MHLW published the Risk Management Plan in April, 2012, and it noted that the MGPs should be utilized in usual risk minimization activities. It is not clear, however, whether the MGPs are efficiently utilized in actual settings. Hence, we conducted a questionnaire survey of the pharmacists in the pharmacies with dispensing and the hospitals in Mie and Yamagata prefectures to investigate the actual circumstances of MGPs utilization and to understand the existing barriers associated with the use of the MGPs as medication instructions for patients. We sent the questionnaires by mail and obtained responses from 444 facilities (33.9%) of 1,309 facilities. The recognition level of the MGPs was about 30 percent in the dispensing pharmacies, and about 50 percent in the hospitals. The MGPs were utilized as a common communication tool with the patients in approximately 20 percent of the facilities. Many respondents requested that the frequency of important and other adverse reactions should be described in the MGPs, and wider ranges of MGPs should be further implemented.
Moreover, our data suggests the problem is that the present MGPs are mainly applied to special types of patients, such as those with higher literacy level or those who requested a detailed explanation. Thus, it is apparent that it is necessary to review the MGPs contents again to improve their practical benefits and disseminate them more widely.

Objective: We conducted a questionnaire survey to comprehend the situation regarding the collection, provision, and utilization of drug safety information at hospitals.  In addition, we asked pharmaceutical companies how they select medical institutions to provide drug safety information.  We also investigated the current situation of information provision to Tokyo Medial Center by pharmaceutical companies.
Method: A questionnaire was mailed to all hospitals in Japan.  The survey was conducted between January 13 and February 10, 2011.  Moreover, we asked thirteen pharmaceutical companies by telephone and e-mail about the implementation status of the provision of information and performed a survey at Tokyo Medical Center on the current situation of information provision by pharmaceutical companies regarding revisions to precaution sections in package inserts.
Results: The results of the questionnaire survey (response rate: 41.2%) showed that the major information sources for hospitals were medical representatives (77.8%), Drug Safety Update (50.3%) and direct mails (49.3%).  Furthermore, in the case of drugs prescribed exclusively for extramural dispensing, fewer hospitals responded that medical representatives of the pharmaceutical companies provided drug safety information and more hospitals responded that they did not obtain any drug safety information at all, compared with drugs listed in the hospital formularies.
Conclusion: To minimize the risks of drugs, healthcare professionals must collect a wide range of drug safety information and must utilize this information in their medical practice.  Therefore, it is important that pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities make an effort to provide suitable information dissemination to medical institutions.  Furthermore, medical institutions must also strengthen their systems for collecting drug safety information and providing such information to healthcare professionals.