METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in twelve public funded primary care clinics in Malaysia. A total of 1753 medical records were randomly selected in 12 primary care clinics in 2007 and were reviewed by trained family physicians for diagnostic, management and documentation errors, potential errors causing serious harm and likelihood of preventability of such errors.
RESULTS: The majority of patient encounters (81%) were with medical assistants. Diagnostic errors were present in 3.6% (95% CI: 2.2, 5.0) of medical records and management errors in 53.2% (95% CI: 46.3, 60.2). For management errors, medication errors were present in 41.1% (95% CI: 35.8, 46.4) of records, investigation errors in 21.7% (95% CI: 16.5, 26.8) and decision making errors in 14.5% (95% CI: 10.8, 18.2). A total of 39.9% (95% CI: 33.1, 46.7) of these errors had the potential to cause serious harm. Problems of documentation including illegible handwriting were found in 98.0% (95% CI: 97.0, 99.1) of records. Nearly all errors (93.5%) detected were considered preventable.
CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of medical errors was high in primary care clinics particularly with documentation and medication errors. Nearly all were preventable. Remedial intervention addressing completeness of documentation and prescriptions are likely to yield reduction of errors.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study, using the 'Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC)' questionnaire was carried out in 2018 in SGH. Random sampling was used to select a wide range of staff in SGH. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 500 hospital staff consisting of doctors, nurses, pharmacist and other clinical and non-clinical staff, conducted from March to April 2018. A total of 407 respondents successfully completed the questionnaire. Therefore, the final response rate for the survey was 81.4%. This study used SPSS 22.0 for Windows and Hospital Data Entry and Analysis Tool that works with Microsoft Excel developed by United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to perform statistical analysis on the survey data.
RESULTS: Majority of the respondents graded the overall patient safety as acceptable (63.1%) while only 3.4% graded as excellent. The overall patient safety score was 50.1% and most of the scores related to dimensions were lower than the benchmark scores (64.8%). Generally, the mean positive response rate for all the dimensions were lower than composite data of AHRQ, except for "Organizational Learning - Continuous Improvement", which is also the highest positive response rate (80%), higher than AHRQ data (73%). The result showed that SGH has a good opportunity to improve over time as it gains experience and accumulates knowledge. On the other hand, the lowest percentage of positive responses was "Non-punitive response to error" (18%), meaning that most of the staff perceived that they will be punished for medical error.
CONCLUSIONS: The level of patient safety culture in SGH is acceptable and most of the scores related to dimensions were lower than benchmark score. SGH as a learning organisation should also address the issues of staffing, improving handoff and transition and develop a non-punitive culture in response to error.
METHOD: Twenty terminally ill patients were interviewed with semi-structured questions. The results were thematically analyzed.
RESULTS: Eight themes were generated: the meaning of happiness, connections, mindset, pleasure, health, faith, wealth, and work. Our results showed that happiness is possible at the end of life. Happiness can coexist with pain and suffering. Social connections were the most important element of happiness at the end of life. Wealth and work were given the least emphasis. From the descriptions of our patients, we recognized a tendency for the degree of importance to shift from the hedonic happiness to eudaimonic happiness as patients experienced a terminal illness.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: To increase the happiness of palliative care patients, it is crucial to assess the meaning of happiness for each patient and the degree of importance for each happiness domain to allow targeted interventions.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary public hospital from July- December 2015 among 276 randomly selected doctors. Data was collected using a standardized and validated self-administered questionnaire intending to measure disclosure and attitudes/perceptions. The scale had four vignettes in total two medical and two surgical. Each vignette consisted of five questions and each question measured the disclosure. Disclosure was categorised as "No Disclosure", "Partial Disclosure" or "Full Disclosure". Data was keyed in and analysed using STATA v 13.0.
RESULTS: Only 10.1% (n = 28) intended to disclose medical errors. Most respondents felt that they possessed an attitude/perception of adequately disclosing errors to patients. There was a statistically significant difference (p