BACKGROUND: The healthcare industry is fundamental to sustaining the health of Australians, yet it is under immense pressure. Budgets are limited, demands are increasing as are workplace injuries and all of these factors compromise patient care. Urgent attention is needed to reduce strains on workers and costs in health care, however, little work has been done to benchmark psychosocial factors in healthcare working conditions in the Asia-Pacific. Intercultural comparisons are important to provide an evidence base for public policy.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used (like other studies of prevalence), including a mixed-methods approach with qualitative interviews to better contextualize the results.
METHODS: Data on psychosocial factors and other work variables were collected from healthcare workers in three hospitals in Australia (N = 1,258) and Malaysia (N = 1,125). 2015 benchmarks were calculated for each variable and comparison was conducted via independent samples t tests. Healthcare samples were also compared with benchmarks for non-healthcare general working populations from their respective countries: Australia (N = 973) and Malaysia (N = 225).
FINDINGS: Our study benchmarks healthcare working conditions in Australia and Malaysia against the general working population, identifying trends that indicate the industry is in need of intervention strategies and job redesign initiatives that better support psychological health and safety.
CONCLUSION: We move toward a better understanding of the precursors of psychosocial safety climate in a broader context, including similarities and differences between Australia and Malaysia in national culture, government occupational health and safety policies and top-level management practices.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted at Klinik Rawatan Keluarga (KRK), Orthopedic clinic and wards in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) from May 2020 to December 2020. A total of 264 participants were recruited and divided into three groups: 50 diabetic patients with no ulcers (control), 107 patients with non-infected diabetic foot ulcers (NIDFU), and 107 patients with infected diabetic foot ulcers (IDFU). The level of PCT was taken for all patients. Total white count (TWC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were taken only for IDFU patients. Diagnosis of infection was based on the Infectious Disease Society of America-International Working Group of Diabetic Foot (IDSA-IMWGDF), and the severity of infection was graded according to the Wagner Classification.
RESULTS: The level of PCT was higher in IDFU than in NIDFU and diabetic patient, with a median (IQR) of 0.355 (0.63) ng/mL, 0.077 (0.15) ng/mL and 0.028 (0.02) ng/mL, respectively. PCT and CRP showed moderate positive correlations in IDFU patients (p<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity were 63.6% and 83.2%, respectively, at the best cut-off at 0.25 ng/mL.
CONCLUSION: PCT is a valuable biomarker for the diagnosis of infection; however, it adds little value in the early diagnosis of IDFU in view of its low sensitivity.