Method: This study was conducted between November and December 2016 at two primary care clinics that offered integrated diabetes care at the time. These sites were selected to assess the discriminative validity of the PACIC. Site 1 is a Malaysian Ministry of Health-run primary care clinic while site 2 is a university-run hospital-based primary care clinic. Only site 1 annually monitors patient performance and encourages them to achieve their HbA1c targets using a standard checklist. Patients with diabetes mellitus who understood English were recruited. Participants were asked to fill out the PACIC at baseline and two weeks later.
Results: A total of 200 out of the 212 invited agreed to participate (response rate=94.3%). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 5-factor structure of the PACIC. The overall PACIC score and the score in two of the five domains were significantly higher at site 1 than at site 2. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.924. At test-retest, intra-class correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.641 to 0.882.
Conclusion: The English version of the PACIC was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of care among patients with diabetes mellitus in Malaysia.
Objective: Here, we report three cases of AS that were diagnosed after the patients developed AAU. Methods: A case series illustrated AAU leading to the diagnosis of AS years after the initial episode of low back pain. A comparison of the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and outcomes was also illustrated.
Result: We report three cases of acute anterior uveitis (AAU)-associated AS diagnosed only after many visits to the primary health care provider with the complaint of chronic low back pain. All three patients had irreversible radiological changes upon diagnosis of AS. The AAU resolved with topical steroids, and one patient developed cataract.
Conclusion: A high index of suspicion of AS in a young adult with chronic back pain before the development of AAU may prevent further functional loss and provide a better prognosis. Diagnosis of AS following AAU is not only associated with dependency but also may rob the vision of a young adult.
Method: This was a cross-sectional study with universal sampling conducted between July and October 2017. A total of 146 patients with asthma aged 18 years and older in a primary care clinic in Putrajaya, Malaysia were recruited. Logistic regressions were used for statistical analysis to examine the association between improper MDI techniques and their related factors.
Results: The majority (83%) of respondents were female with a median age of 37 (IQR = 30.75-49.25) years, and the median duration of asthma of 20 (IQR = 10-30) years. An improper MDI technique was observed in 100 (71.9%) patients. The most frequently missed step was exhaling gently and fully before inhalation (51.4%). Respondents who were not on an MDI preventer (adjusted OR: 2.487, 95% CI: 1.121-5.519, p = 0 .025) or had used an MDI 5 years or fewer (adjusted OR: 3.369, 95% CI: 1.425-7.964, p = 0.006) were more likely to employ an improper MDI technique.
Conclusion: There was a high proportion of improper MDI techniques among patients with asthma. Patients not using an MDI preventer or who had used an MDI less than 5 years were at higher risk of improper MDI technique.
Methods: A retrospective review of electronic medical records was conducted to assess the prescription of SPMs among patients with coronary artery disease who attended the clinic between 1st January 2018 and 31st December 2018. Prescriptions of SPMs were documented in numbers and percentages. Multiple logistic regressions were used to analyse factors associated with the prescription of SPMs.
Results: Of the 662 patients included in the study, 99.1% were prescribed statins, 97% antiplatelets, 81.7% angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), and 78.7% beta-blockers. Male patients were more likely to be prescribed statins (OR = 8.584, 95% CI: 1.431 - 51.510) and antiplatelets (OR = 6.818, 95% CI: 2.294 - 20.257). Another significant factor for antiplatelets prescription was having diabetes (OR = 3.318, 95% CI: 1.148 - 9.590). Having hypertension was associated with ACE-inhibitors or ARBs prescription (OR = 4.008, 95% CI: 2.522 - 6.370).
Conclusion: Although the majority of patients received SPMs, there were significant disparities for some SPMs prescriptions among female patients. As these medications are widely available in the Malaysian primary care setting, steps should be taken to ensure that these medications are prescribed equally for all eligible patients.
Objective: The aim was to translate and adapt the English PFFS for use in Malaysian clinical settings.
Methods: The original English PFFS underwent forward and backward-translation by two bilingual translators to and from the Malay language. A finalized version, the PFFS-Malay (PFFS-M), was formed after expert reviewers' consensus and was pilot tested with 20 patients, 20 caregivers, 16 healthcare assistants, 17 nurses and 22 doctors. Score agreement between patients and their caregivers and among healthcare professionals were assessed. All participants rated their understanding of the scale using the feasibility survey forms.
Results: A total of 95 participants were included. There were high percentages of scoring agreements among all participants on the scale (66.7% to 98.9%). Overall feedback from all respondents were positive and supported the face validity of the PFFS-M.
Conclusion: The PFFS-M reflects an accurate translation for the Malaysian population. The scale is usable and feasible and has face validity. Reliability and predictive validity assessments of the PFFS-M are currently underway.
Methodology: Initially, we interviewed 85 patients with established glaucoma who underwent Humphrey visual field (HVF) testing and also reviewed their medical notes. We looked for documentation of their driving status, specifically whether those with bilateral visual field (VF) defects recalled being given advice about the dangers of driving and whether this was documented in the notes. After this initial audit, doctors were educated on the availability of guidelines on visual requirements for driving, and reminder adhesive labels were put on the front of medical notes of driving glaucoma patients. A follow-up audit was then performed on 95 different patients.
Results: In the initial audit, none of the patients had their driving status recorded. Only 36% of drivers with bilateral VF defects recalled being advised of the dangers of driving, with no documentation of whether the advice was given to them. Following the interventions, documentation of driving status became 86%. All drivers with bilateral VF defects recalled being advised regarding the dangers of driving, with documentation of the advice being given recorded in 73% of the medical notes.
Conclusion: Eye doctors are inadequately identifying, advising, and documenting the dangers of driving in the medical notes of glaucoma patients with bilateral VF defects. This can be improved with simple interventions, such as the education of doctors and creating reminder labels, for the benefit of our glaucoma patients.