METHODS: Medical claims records from February 2019 to February 2020 were extracted from a health insurance claims database. Data cleaning and data analysis were performed using Python 3.7 with the Pandas, NumPy and Matplotlib libraries. The top five most common diagnoses were identified, and for each diagnosis, the most common medication classes and medications prescribed were quantified. Potentially inappropriate prescribing practices were identified by comparing the medications prescribed with relevant clinical guidelines.
KEY FINDINGS: The five most common diagnoses were upper respiratory tract infection (41.5%), diarrhoea (7.7%), musculoskeletal pain (7.6%), headache (6.7%) and gastritis (4.0%). Medications prescribed by general practitioners were largely as expected for symptomatic management of the respective conditions. One area of potentially inappropriate prescribing identified was inappropriate antibiotic choice. Same-class polypharmacy that may lead to an increased risk of adverse events were also identified, primarily involving multiple paracetamol-containing products, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antihistamines. Other areas of non-adherence to guidelines identified included the potential overuse of oral corticosteroids and oral salbutamol, and inappropriate gastroprotection for patients receiving NSAIDs.
CONCLUSIONS: While prescribing practices are generally appropriate within the private primary care sector, there remain several areas where some potentially inappropriate prescribing occurs. The areas identified should be the focus in continuing efforts to improve prescribing practices to obtain the optimal clinical outcomes while reducing unnecessary risks and healthcare costs.
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted among patients and primary care trainees (known henceforth as doctors). Patients aged ≥ 60 years, having ≥ 1 chronic disease and prescribed ≥ 5 medications and could communicate in either English or Malay were recruited. Doctors and patients were purposively sampled based on their stage of training as family medicine specialists and ethnicity, respectively. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic approach was used to analyse data.
RESULTS: Twenty-four in-depth interviews (IDIs) with patients and four focus group discussions (FGDs) with 23 doctors were conducted. Four themes emerged: understanding the concept of deprescribing, the necessity to perform deprescribing, concerns regarding deprescribing and factors influencing deprescribing. Patients were receptive to the idea of deprescribing when the term was explained to them, whilst doctors had a good understanding of deprescribing. Both patients and doctors would deprescribe when the necessity outweighed their concerns. Factors that influenced deprescribing were doctor-patient rapport, health literacy among patients, external influences from carers and social media, and system challenges.
CONCLUSION: Deprescribing was deemed necessary by both patients and doctors when there was a reason to do so. However, both doctors and patients were afraid to deprescribe as they 'didn't want to rock the boat'. Early-career doctors were reluctant to deprescribe as they felt compelled to continue medications that were initiated by another specialist. Doctors requested more training on how to deprescribe medications.
METHODS: A simulated patient method was used to evaluate pharmacist counseling practices in Sydney, Australia. Twenty community pharmacists received three simulated patient visits concerning antidepressant adherence-related scenarios at different phases of treatment: 1) patient receiving a first-time antidepressant prescription and hesitant to begin treatment; 2) patient perceiving lack of treatment efficacy for antidepressant after starting treatment for 2 weeks; and 3) patient wanting to discontinue antidepressant treatment after 3 months due to perceived symptom improvement. The interactions were recorded and analyzed to evaluate the content of consultations in terms of information gathering, information provision including key educational messages, and treatment recommendations.
RESULTS: There was variability among community pharmacists in terms of the extent and content of information gathered and provided. In scenario 1, while some key educational messages such as possible side effects and expected benefits from antidepressants were mentioned frequently, others such as the recommended length of treatment and adherence-related messages were rarely addressed. In all scenarios, about two thirds of pharmacists explored patients' concerns about antidepressant treatment. In scenarios 2 and 3, only half of all pharmacists' consultations involved questions to assess the patient's medication use. The pharmacists' main recommendation in response to the patient query was to refer the patient back to the prescribing physician.
CONCLUSION: The majority of pharmacists provided information about the risks and benefits of antidepressant treatment. However, there remains scope for improvement in community pharmacists' counseling practice for patients on antidepressant treatment, particularly in providing key educational messages including adherence-related messages, exploring patients' concerns, and monitoring medication adherence.
METHODS: Seventy-seven medical doctors and eighty nurses answered a self-administered questionnaire designed to capture demographic data and information regarding abbreviation use in medical practice. Comparisons were made between doctors and nurses with regards to frequency and reasons for using abbreviations; from where abbreviations were learned; frequency of encountering abbreviations in medical practice; prevalence of medical errors due to misinterpretation of abbreviations; and their ability to correctly interpret commonly used abbreviations.
RESULTS: The use of abbreviations was highly prevalent among doctors and nurses. Time saving, avoidance of writing sentences in full and convenience, were the main reasons for using abbreviations. Doctors learned abbreviations from fellow doctors while nurses learned from fellow nurses and doctors. More doctors than nurses reported encountering abbreviations. Both groups reported no difficulties in interpreting abbreviations although nurses reported often resorting to guesswork. Both groups felt abbreviations were necessary and an acceptable part of work. Doctors outperformed nurses in correctly interpreting commonly used standard and non-standard abbreviations.
CONCLUSION: The use of standard and non-standard abbreviation in clinical practice by doctors and nurses was highly prevalent. Significant variability in interpretation of abbreviations exists between doctors and nurses.
METHODS: A qualitative study using in-depth interviews of 31 healthcare practitioners from nine publicly funded, primary care clinics in three states in peninsular Malaysia was conducted for this study. The participants included family medicine specialists, doctors, pharmacists, pharmacist assistants, nurses and assistant medical officers. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Analysis of the data was guided by the framework approach.
RESULTS: Six themes and 28 codes were identified. Despite the availability of a reporting system, most of the participants agreed that MEs were underreported. The nature of the error plays an important role in determining the reporting. The reporting system, organisational factors, provider factors, reporter's burden and benefit of reporting also were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare practitioners in primary care clinics understood the importance of reporting MEs to improve patient safety. Their perceptions and attitudes towards reporting of MEs were influenced by many factors which affect the decision-making process of whether or not to report. Although the process is complex, it primarily is determined by the severity of the outcome of the errors. The participants voluntarily report the errors if they are familiar with the reporting system, what error to report, when to report and what form to use.
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the HL communication practices among physicians, pharmacists, and nurses serving at public hospitals in Penang, Malaysia.
METHODS: A pretested, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from study participants of 6 public hospitals using stratified sampling. Descriptive and inferential statistics used to analyze the data with level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Of 600 distributed questionnaires, 526 (87.6%) were adequately filled and returned. Almost 19.0% (n = 98) of the respondents admitted that they did not frequently use simple language and avoid medical jargon during communication with patients. Only about half of the respondents reported frequently using other HL communication practices that include handing out education material to patients (52.2%, n = 275), asking the patient to repeat information (58.9%, n = 310), and asking patients' caregivers to be present during explanation (57.4%, n = 302). Comparatively, drawing pictures to ease patients' understanding (40.1%, n = 211) was the less-frequently practiced HL communication techniques. Health practitioners in the age group >41 years ( P = 0.046), serving 10 years and more ( P = 0.03) and those who have heard the term or concept of HL ( P = 0.004) have statistically significantly higher mean score of HL communication practices than other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The gap in the HL communication practices among physicians, pharmacists, and nurses warrants educational intervention, and standardized HL communication techniques guidelines are needed in the near future.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among N = 271 primary care physicians from 86 primary care practices throughout two states in Malaysia. Questionnaires used were specifically developed based on the TPB, consisting of both direct and indirect measures related to the provision of sickness leave. Questionnaire validity was established through factor analysis and the determination of internal consistency between theoretically related constructs. The temporal stability of the indirect measures was determined via the test-retest correlation analysis. Structural equation modelling was conducted to determine the strength of predictors related to intentions.
RESULTS: The mean scores for intention to provide patients with sickness was low. The Cronbach α value for the direct measures was good: overall physician intent to provide sick leave (0.77), physician attitude towards prescribing sick leave for patients (0.77) and physician attitude in trusting the intention of patients seeking sick leave (0.83). The temporal stability of the indirect measures of the questionnaire was satisfactory with significant correlation between constructs separated by an interval of two weeks (p