The Emergency Department (ED) provides treatment for acutely ill patients in need of urgent medical attention. Despite the availability of the primary care unit ‘Klinik Kesihatan’, where non urgent patients should be treated, Malaysia’s public hospitals still need to deal with overcrowding of non-urgent patients in ED. The main aim of the study was to assess the willingness of non-urgent patients to be redirected to Klinik Kesihatan. This was a cross-sectional study conducted at Hospital Tuaran Emergency Department, Sabah. Non-urgent patients were interviewed using a questionnaire, to find out the purpose of their visit to Emergency Department. A total of 318 non-urgent patients out of 457 patients were interviewed during the study duration. 41 respondents (12.9%) were willing to be redirected towards a Klinik Kesihatan. No associated factors were found when compared with the unwilling to be redirected group. Among 277 respondents who rejected redirection to Klinik Kesihatan, 70.4% agreed to pay a surcharge to be treated in the Emergency Department and there was no association found with the employment status (p= 0.391). Most patients were not willing to accept redirection to a Klinik Kesihatan and would prefer to visit the Emergency Department despite knowing that their condition or illness is one that does not require emergency treatment. Social media, advertisements and pamphlets must be made available to educate patients on the proper use of the Emergency Department.
Introduction: Workers in hospitals are exposed to various occupational hazards such as high level disinfectants (HLD).
Disinfection is an essential component of the endoscope reprocessing. In the Endoscopy Unit of Queen Elizabeth Hospital,
Succindialdehyde (SA) is used as the disinfectant for endoscope reprocessing. SA has properties that are similar to formaldehyde
in regard to contact allergies and toxicity. The purpose of this case study is to describe the occurrence of work related symptoms
(WRS), the proper use of personal protective attire (PPE) and the need of pre-employment health enquiries for those exposed to SA.
Methodology: This was a cross sectional case study. Twenty eight gastrointestinal assistants (GIA) from the thirty two exposed staff
working with the Queen Elizabeth Hospital’s Endoscopy Unit, who fulfilled the study criteria, were given a modified Respiratory
Surveillance Questionnaire. This questionnaireis used as the health surveillance tool for the staff exposed to the occupational
respiratory hazard by the Occupational Health Unit, University of Edinburgh. Results: Most of the GIAs complained of headache
(85.7%), skin irritations (60.7%) followed by 57.1% watery eyes, wheeziness and runny nose. Majority (92.9%) of the GIAs wore
personal protective equipment (PPE) during the disinfection procedure. Pre-employment enquiries regarding asthma, skin and
mucosal sensitivity problems and lung function were not made to any of the GIAs. Only 14.3% of them do annual health surveillances.
Conclusion: Most of the GIAs, 92.9% experienced at least one WRS despite wearing PPE. Staff exposed to the chemical disinfectants
should wear proper PPE and do annual health surveillances. By practising this, we may avoid WRS and treat the staff accordingly.