DESIGN: We conducted a multi-country cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Following a literature review and patient focus groups, an expert panel generated questionnaire items. Following a pilot study, item numbers were reduced. The final questionnaire consisted of three sections: demographics, perceived QoC and one open-ended question. Data was collected from patients (n = 531) discharged from hospitals across seven countries in South East Europe (languages: Turkish, Greek, Portuguese, Romanian, Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian). Reliability and validity of the measure were assessed.
RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare various factor models of patient-perceived QoC. Good model fit was demonstrated for a two-factor model: communication and interpersonal care, and hospital facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: The ORCAB (Improving quality and safety in the hospital: The link between organisational culture, burnout and quality of care) Patient QoC questionnaire has been collaboratively and exhaustively developed between healthcare professionals and patients. It enables patient QoC data to be assessed in the context of the IOM pillars of quality, considering both technical and interpersonal dimensions of care. It represents an important first step in including the patient perspective.
METHODS: A prospective pre- and post-intervention study was conducted among medical inpatients in a Malaysian secondary care hospital. DVT and bleeding risks were stratified using validated Padua Risk Assessment Model (RAM) and International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) Bleeding Risk Assessment Model. Pharmacist-driven DRAT was developed and implemented post-interventional phase. DVT prophylaxis use was determined and its appropriateness was compared between pre and post study using multivariate logistic regression with IBM SPSS software version 21.0.
RESULTS: Overall, 286 patients (n=142 pre-intervention versus n=144 post-intervention) were conveniently recruited. The prevalence of DVT prophylaxis use was 10.8%. Appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribing increased from 64.8% to 68.1% post-DRAT implementation. Of note, among high DVT risk patients, DRAT intervention was observed to be a significant predictor of appropriate thromboprophylaxis use (14.3% versus 31.3%; adjusted odds ratio=2.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 7.80; p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The appropriateness of DVT prophylaxis use was suboptimal but doubled after implementation of DRAT intervention. Thus, an integrated risk stratification checklist is an effective approach for the improvement of rational DVT prophylaxis use.
METHODS: This was a 4-year cross-sectional study of snakebite patients from January 2013 to December 2016 in Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah (HSNZ), Terengganu. Data was extracted from the Pharmacy Record on the usage of antivenom and patients of snakebites treated with antivenom were identified. Data of patients were then obtained from the electronic medical records.' Demographic details, clinical features and characteristics of antivenom reactions of patients were recorded in standardized data collection forms and analyzed using chi-square or Mann- Whitney U tests.
RESULTS: Of the 44 patients who received antivenom, 24 (54.5%) developed hypersensitivity reaction. All patients developed reaction early. No patient developed delayed (serum-sickness) reaction. Of the 24 patients, 14 (58.3%) had moderate to severe hypersensitivity reaction and 9 (37.5%) patients had mild reactions. Only one (4.2%) patient presented with bradycardia.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of early hypersensitivity reaction to snake antivenom in HSNZ was relatively high. Healthcare providers should be aware of the appropriate method of preparing and administering antivenom, and the management for acute hypersensitivity reactions. This will optimize the management of snakebite and ensure patient safety.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between severe anxiety disorder and other factors with COVID-19 disease severity.
METHODS: This was cross-sectional study during March - November 2020. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 was done by using RT-PCR from throat swabs, based on WHO's interim guidelines. AD was measured using self-reporting Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). All participants underwent, history taking, physical examinations, blood routine examination and chest radiography. Association between severe AD and other factors with COVID-19 disease severity were analyzed. Chi-square test (bivariate) and Logistic regression (multivariate) with the precision value of 95% was done and p-value less than 5% was considered significant.
RESULTS: Positive rate of Covid-19 patients was 43% (292 / 678). Among those 292 with Covid-19, 74 (25.3%) participants had severe disease. Multivariate analysis showed severe anxiety (OR 696.11; 95%CI: 78.54 to 6169.98; p<0.001), hypertension (OR 37.02; 95%CI: 4.49 to 305.39; p=0.001) and neutrophyl lymphocyte ratio (NLR) less than 2.89 (OR 0.15; 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.62; p=0.009).
CONCLUSION: Severe anxiety, hypertension and NLR less than 2.89 are potential independent risk factors for severe infection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).
METHOD: A convenience sample of 102 patients was recruited from four Cure and Care Service Centres in Malaysia.
RESULTS: Principal component analysis with varimax rotation supported two-factor solutions for each subscale: problem recognition, desire for help and treatment readiness, which accounted for 63.5%, 62.7% and 49.1% of the variances, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were acceptable for the overall measures (24 items: ∝ = 0.89), the problem recognition scale (10 items; ∝ = 0.89), desire for help (6 items; ∝ = 0.64) and treatment readiness scale (8 items; ∝ = 0.60). The results also indicated significant motivational differences for different modalities, with inpatients having significantly higher motivational scores in each scale compared to outpatients.
CONCLUSION: The present study pointed towards the favourable psychometric properties of a motivation for treatment scale, which can be a useful instrument for clinical applications of drug use changes and treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence, clinical features and risk factors of cADRs among hospitalized patients.
METHODS: A prospective study was conducted among medical inpatients from July to December 2014.
RESULTS: A total of 43 cADRs were seen among 11 017 inpatients, yielding an incidence rate of 0.4%. cADR accounted for hospitalization in 26 patients. Previous history of cADR was present in 14 patients, with 50% exposed to the same drug taken previously. Potentially lifethreatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR), namely drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS: 14 cases) and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (SJS/TEN: 6 cases) comprise almost 50% of cADRs. The commonest culprit drug group was antibiotics (37.2%), followed by anticonvulsants (18.6%). Cotrimoxazole, phenytoin and rifampicin were the main causative drugs for DRESS. Anticonvulsants were most frequently implicated in SJS/TEN (66.7%). Most cases had "probable" causality relationship with suspected drug (69.8%). The majority of cases were of moderate severity (65.1%), while 18.6% had severe reaction with 1 death recorded. Most cases were not preventable (76.7%). Older age (> 60 years) and mucosal involvement were significantly associated with a more severe reaction.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of cADRs was 0.4%, with most cases classified as moderate severity and not preventable. The commonest reaction pattern was DRESS, while the main culprit drug group was antibiotics. Older age and mucosal membrane involvement predicts a severe drug reaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted between 1st October 2021 till September 2022 in the state of Johor, Malaysia. 300 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were randomly selected and followed up for six months. Data were analysed by using Chi-square test, Fisher's Exact test, Paired t test and Multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: The prevalence of short-term neuropsychiatric symptoms was 78%, with anosmia being the most prevalent symptom. Long-term symptoms were found in 22.75% of patients, with headache being the most prevalent (p= 0.001). COVID-19 Stage 2 and 3 infections were associated with a higher risk of short-term neuropsychiatric symptoms, OR for Stage 2 infection was 5.18 (95% CI: 1.48-16.97; p=0.009) and for Stage 3 infection was 4.52 (95% CI: 1.76-11.59; p=0.002). Complete vaccination was a significant predictor of longterm symptoms with adjusted OR 3.65 (95% CI 1.22-10.91; p=0.021).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that neuropsychiatric symptoms were common among COVID-19 patients in Johor, Malaysia and the risk of these symptoms was associated with the severity of the infection. Additionally, complete vaccination does not completely protect against long-term neuropsychiatric deficits. This is crucial for continuous monitoring and addressing neuropsychiatric symptoms in COVID-19 survivors.