CASE PRESENTATION: Here, we report two cases of melioidosis from Nepal. Both of them were diabetic male who presented themselves with fever, multiple abscesses and developed sepsis. They were treated with multiple antimicrobial agents including antitubercular drugs before being correctly diagnosed as melioidosis. Consistent with this, both patients were farmer by occupation and also reported travelling to Malaysia in the past. The diagnosis was made consequent to the isolation of B. pseudomallei from pus samples. Accordingly, they were managed with intravenous meropenem followed by oral doxycycline and cotrimoxazole.
CONCLUSION: The case reports raise serious concern over the existing unawareness of melioidosis in Nepal. Both of the cases were left undiagnosed for a long time. Therefore, clinicians need to keep a high index of suspicion while encountering similar cases. Especially diabetic-farmers who present with fever and sepsis and do not respond to antibiotics easily may turn out to be yet another case of melioidosis. Ascertaining the travel history and occupational history is of utmost significance. In addition, the microbiologist should be trained to correctly identify B. pseudomallei as it is often confused for other Burkholderia species. The organism responds only to specific antibiotics; therefore, correct and timely diagnosis becomes crucial for better outcomes.
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.