MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant, peer-reviewed, Englishlanguage articles on land ambulance accidents were independently searched by the authors using the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases. Anecdotal reports, testimonies and stories in trade or popular magazines and other grey literature were excluded. Articles that do not directly address ambulance accidents were also excluded. Additional articles were identified from the reference lists of the selected articles and from Google search engine.

RESULTS: From an initial yield of 879 articles, 19 articles were included. Most of these articles were published from 2001 - 2005 (5 articles, 26.3%) and 2006 - 2010 (5 articles, 26.3%). Eighteen articles (78.3%) are original articles (18 articles, 78.3%) and another one article is a review article. Most of these articles focused on (1) the types of collisions and (2) the risk factors of ambulance accidents. Nine risk factors were identified to have contributed to ambulance accidents: (1) driving in urban areas (2) driving on dry road (3) the use of lights & sirens (4) the failure to use restraints (5) driving for emergency use (6) back seating (7) at road intersection (8) driver's previous records of accidents and (9) interfacility transfer. The two most common risk factors studied were (1) the use of lights & sirens and (2) driving at intersection.

METHODS: An open-label study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of 1.5 mcg/kg intranasal fentanyl to 2 mg/kg intravenous tramadol (fentanyl + tramadol arm, n = 10) as compared to the administration of 2 mg/kg intravenous tramadol alone (tramadol-only arm, n = 10) in adult patients with moderate to severe pain due to acute musculoskeletal injuries.

RESULTS: When analysed using the independent t-test, the difference between the mean visual analogue scale scores pre-intervention and ten minutes post-intervention was 29.8 ± 8.4 mm in the fentanyl + tramadol arm and 19.6 ± 9.7 mm in the tramadol-only arm (t[18] = 2.515, p = 0.022, 95% confidence interval 1.68-18.72 mm). A statistically significant, albeit transient, reduction in the ten-minute post-intervention mean arterial pressure was noted in the fentanyl + tramadol arm as compared to the tramadol-only arm (13.35 mmHg vs. 7.65 mmHg; using Mann-Whitney U test with U-value 21.5, p = 0.029, r = 0.48). There was a higher incidence of transient dizziness ten minutes after intervention among the patients in the fentanyl + tramadol arm.

AIMS: We conducted a voluntary, anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey of a group of 164 final year medical students and 60 final year dental students to unravel their attitudes towards performing bystander CPR.

METHODS: Using a 4-point Likert scale of "definitely yes," "probably yes," "probably no," and "definitely no," the students were asked to rate their willingness to perform bystander CPR under three categories: chest compressions with mouth-to-mouth ventilation (CC + MMV), chest compressions with mask-to-mouth ventilation (CC + PMV), and chest compressions only (CC). Under each category, the students were given ten hypothetical victim scenarios. Categorical data analysis was done using the McNemar test, chi-square test, and Fisher exact test where appropriate. For selected analysis, "definitely yes" and "probably yes" were recoded as a "positive response."

RESULTS: Generally, we found that only 51.4% of the medical and 45.5% of the dental students are willing to perform bystander CPR. When analyzed under different hypothetical scenarios, we found that, except for the scenario where the victim is their own family member, all other scenarios showed a dismally low rate of positive responses in the category of CC + MMV, but their willingness was significantly improved under the CC + PMV and CC categories.

METHODS: This questionnaire is divided into two parts. Part A is to evaluate the clinicians' awareness towards cognitive errors in clinical decision making while Part B is to evaluate their perception towards specific cognitive errors. Content validation for both parts was first determined followed by construct validation for Part A. Construct validation for Part B was not determined as the responses were set in a dichotomous format.

RESULTS: For content validation, all items in both Part A and Part B were rated as "excellent" in terms of their relevance in clinical settings. For construct validation using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for Part A, a two-factor model with total variance extraction of 60% was determined. Two items were deleted. Then, the EFA was repeated showing that all factor loadings are above the cut-off value of >0.5. The Cronbach's alpha for both factors are above 0.6.

METHODS: We performed a randomized, open-label study from March until August 2011 to compare the bronchodilatory effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol in acute exacerbation of mild to moderate asthmatic attack in an emergency department. Initial objective parameters measured include the oxygen saturation, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and respiratory rate. During clinical reassessment, subjective parameters [i.e., Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 5-point Likert scale of breathlessness] and the second reading of the objective parameters were measured. For the 5-point Likert scale, the patients were asked to describe their symptom relief as 1, much worse; 2, a little worse; 3, no change; 4, a little better; 5, much better.

RESULTS: Out of the total of 32 patients enrolled, 17 patients (53%) were randomized to receive nebulized salbutamol and 15 (47%) to receive Symbicort®. For both treatment arms, by using paired t- and Wilcoxon signed rank tests, it was shown that there were statistically significant improvements in oxygen saturation, PEFR and respiratory rate within the individual treatment groups (pre- vs. post-treatment). Comparing the effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol, the average improvement of oxygen saturation was 1% in both treatment arms (p = 0.464), PEFR 78.67 l/min vs. 89.41 l/min, respectively (p = 0.507), and respiratory rate 2/min vs. 2/min (p = 0.890). For subjective evaluation, all patients reported improvement in the VAS (average 2.45 cm vs. 2.20 cm), respectively (p = 0.765). All patients in both treatment arms reported either "a little better" or "much better" on the 5-point Likert scale, with none reporting "no change" or getting worse.

METHOD: Two categories of participants, i.e., medical doctors (n = 11) and final year medical students (Group 1, n = 5; Group 2, n = 10) participated in four separate focus group discussions. Nielsen's 5 dimensions of usability (i.e. learnability, effectiveness, memorability, errors, and satisfaction) and Pentland's narrative network were adapted as the framework to study the usability and the implementation of the checklist in a real clinical setting respectively.

RESULTS: Both categories (medical doctors and medical students) of participants found that the TWED checklist was easy to learn and effective in promoting metacognition. For medical student participants, items "T" and "W" were believed to be the two most useful aspects of the checklist, whereas for the doctor participants, it was item "D". Regarding its implementation, item "T" was applied iteratively, items "W" and "E" were applied when the outcomes did not turn out as expected, and item "D" was applied infrequently. The one checkpoint where all four items were applied was after the initial history taking and physical examination had been performed to generate the initial clinical impression.

METHODS: A total of 88 final year medical students were assigned to either an educational intervention group or a control group in a non-equivalent group post-test only design. Participants in the intervention group received a tutorial on the use of a mnemonic checklist aimed to minimize cognitive errors in clinical decision-making. Two weeks later, the participants in both groups were given a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases, with 3 items per case, to assess their clinical decisions when additional data are given in the case scenarios.

RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney U-test performed on the total scores from both groups showed no statistical significance (U = 792, z = -1.408, p = 0.159). When comparisons were made for the first half and the second half of the SCT, it was found that participants in the intervention group performed significantly better than participants in the control group in the first half of the test, with median scores of 9.15 (IQR 8.00-10.28) vs. 8.18 (IQR 7.16-9.24) respectively, U = 642.5, z = -2.661, p = 0.008. No significant difference was found in the second half of the test, with the median score of 9.58 (IQR 8.90-10.56) vs. 9.81 (IQR 8.83-11.12) for the intervention group and control group respectively (U = 897.5, z = -0.524, p = 0.60).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant, peer-reviewed, Englishlanguage articles on healthcare service quality in Malaysia were independently searched by the authors using the SCOPUS and EMERALD databases. Articles that do not directly address healthcare service quality within the Malaysian setting were excluded. Additional articles were identified from the reference lists of the selected articles and from Google search engine. A total of 43 out of 2,749 articles were selected.

RESULTS: Most of these studies (28 out of the 43 articles, 65.1%) in this scoping review used either the original or a modified version of SERVQUAL instrument to measure healthcare service quality. Significant positive relationships between tangibles, assurance and empathy with patient satisfaction were identified. As SERVQUAL primarily measures the functional dimension of service quality, this suggests that past studies on Malaysian healthcare services emphasised heavily on the functional dimension of healthcare service quality. Functional dimension refers to the expressive performance on how the healthcare service is rendered whereas technical dimension refers to the types of services rendered as well as its safety and efficacy.

METHODS: Two groups of final-year medical students from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, were recruited to participate in this quasi-experimental study. The intervention group (n = 21) received educational intervention that introduced the TWED checklist, while the control group (n = 19) received a tutorial on basic electrocardiography. Post-intervention, both groups received a similar assessment on clinical decision-making based on five case scenarios.

RESULTS: The mean score of the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group (18.50 ± 4.45 marks vs. 12.50 ± 2.84 marks, p < 0.001). In three of the five case scenarios, students in the intervention group obtained higher scores than those in the control group.