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.
OBJECTIVES: This is an audit project aiming to evaluate the proportion of misdiagnosis among hospitalised communityacquired pneumonia (CAP) patients in the Respiratory wards of Penang General Hospital based on their initial presentation data, and their associated outcomes.
METHODS: We reviewed the medical notes and initial chest radiographs of 188 CAP patients who were admitted to respiratory wards. Misdiagnosis was defined as cases which lack suggestive clinical features and/or chest radiograph changes. In-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS) were the outcomes of interest.
RESULTS: The study found that 38.8% (n=73) of the hospitalised CAP patients were misdiagnosed. The most common alternative diagnosis was upper respiratory tract infection (32.8%, n=24). There was no statistical difference between misdiagnosis and CAP patients in the demographic and clinical variables collected. In terms of outcomes, misdiagnosed patients were discharged earlier (mean LOS= 3.5±3.28 days vs. 7.7±15.29 days, p=0.03) but the in-hospital mortality difference was not statistically significant (p=0.07).
CONCLUSIONS: One third of our CAP admissions were misdiagnosed. Although initial misdiagnosis of CAP in our study did not show any increase in mortality or morbidity, a proper diagnosis of CAP will be helpful in preventing inappropriate prescription of antibiotics and unnecessary admission.