This study aimed to collate data on childhood drowning in Malaysia and review existing drowning prevention measures. This study used secondary data from governmental and non-governmental agencies. All reported fatal drownings from 2000 to 2007 and all reported non-fatal drownings from 2000 to 2008 were included. Data were analysed to provide understanding of the epidemiology of drowning incidents, risk factors and available preventive efforts. On average 286 (range 248-344) children died yearly due to drowning with a death rate of 3.05 per 100,000 annually. An additional average of 207 children drowned but survived annually (1.99 per 100,000). The estimated burden of drowning in children (death and non-death) is 5 per 100,000. There was no reduction in annual drowning fatalities over time. Most drowning took place in east coast regions during the annual monsoon season. It was 3.52 (2.80-4.41) times more common in boys and most prevalent among 10-14 years. Most prevalent sites of all-age drowning were seas and rivers. Limited water safety regulations are currently available in the country. This is the first comprehensive national study in Malaysia on paediatric drowning and highlights the magnitude of the problem. It calls for concerted effort to devise effective national drowning prevention measures.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effectiveness of a structured prescription review and prescriber feedback program in reducing prescribing errors in government primary care clinics within an administrative region in Malaysia.
METHODS: This was a three group, pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. In phase 1, we randomised 51 clinics to a full intervention group (prescription review and league tables plus authorised feedback letter), a partial intervention group (prescription review and league tables), and a control group (prescription review only). Prescribers in these clinics were the target of our intervention. Prescription reviews were performed by pharmacists; 20 handwritten prescriptions per prescriber were consecutively screened on a random day each month, and errors identified were recorded in a standardised data collection form. Prescribing performance feedback was conducted at the completion of each prescription review cycle. League tables benchmark prescribing errors across clinics and individual prescribers, while the authorised feedback letter detailed prescribing performance based on a rating scale. In phase 2, all clinics received the full intervention. Pharmacists were trained on data collection, and all data were audited by researchers as an implementation fidelity strategy. The primary outcome, percentage of prescriptions with at least one error, was displayed in p-charts to enable group comparison.
RESULTS: A total of 32,200 prescriptions were reviewed. In the full intervention group, error reduction occurred gradually and was sustained throughout the 8-month study period. The process mean error rate of 40.7% (95% CI 27.4, 29.5%) in phase 1 reduced to 28.4% (95% CI 27.4, 29.5%) in phase 2. In the partial intervention group, error reduction was not well sustained and showed a seasonal pattern with larger process variability. The phase 1 error rate averaging 57.9% (95% CI 56.5, 59.3%) reduced to 44.8% (95% CI 43.3, 46.4%) in phase 2. There was no evidence of improvement in the control group, with phase 1 and phase 2 error rates averaging 41.1% (95% CI 39.6, 42.6%) and 39.3% (95% CI 37.8, 40.9%) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of prescribing errors in primary care settings is high, and routine prescriber feedback comprising league tables and a feedback letter can effectively reduce prescribing errors.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Medical Research Register: NMRR-12-108-11,289 (5th March 2012).