A cross-sectional study, comparing the nature of services in 15 private clinics and 6 public health facilities, was undertaken in a rural district of Malaysia. Semi-structured interviews and observations using check-lists were employed. Public health facilities were run by younger doctors (mean age = 31.1 years), supported mostly by trained staff. The private clinics were run by older doctors (mean age = 41.2 years) who had served the district for much longer (8.9 years vs 1.5 years) but were supported by less well trained staff. The curative services were the main strength of the private clinics but their provision of preventive care was less comprehensive and of inferior quality. Private clinics were inclined to provide more expensive diagnostic services than the public facilities. 'Short hours' private clinics had very restricted opening hours and offered limited range of services.
Comment in: Hee HW. Differences in public and private health services in a rural district of Malaysia. Med J Malaysia. 1997 Sep;52(3):296-8
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The trauma services provided by 6 hospitals operating at 2 levels of care (4 secondary or district general hospitals and 2 tertiary care hospitals) in Malaysia are compared in terms of mortality and disability for direct admissions to emergency departments to test the hypothesis that care at a tertiary care hospital is better than at a district general hospital.
METHODS: All cases were recruited prospectively for 1 year. The hospitals were purposefully selected as typical for Malaysia. There are 3 primary outcome measures: death, musculoskeletal impairment, and disability at discharge. Adjustment was made for potential covariates and within-hospital clustering by using multivariable random-effects logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: For direct admissions, logistic-regression-identified odds of dying were associated with older age (>55 years), odds ratio (OR) 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 2.8); head injury, OR 2.7 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.9); arrival by means other than ambulance, OR 0.6 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.8); severe injuries (Injury Severity Score >15) at a district general hospital, OR 45.2 (95% CI 27.0 to 75.7); severe injuries at a tertiary care hospital, OR 11.2 (95% CI 7.3 to 17.3); and admission to a tertiary care hospital compared to a district general hospital if severely injured (Injury Severity Score >15), OR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4). Admission to a tertiary care hospital was associated with increased odds of disability (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 2.3) and musculoskeletal impairment (OR 3.5; 95% CI 2.7 to 4.4) at discharge.
CONCLUSION: Care at a tertiary care hospital was associated with reduced mortality (by 83% in severe injuries), but with a higher likelihood of disability and impairment, which has implications for improving access to trauma services for the severely injured in Malaysia and other low- and middle-income settings.
The effectiveness of trauma services provided by three hospitals operating at different levels of care, district general (DGH), tertiary care, and central tertiary, were compared in Malaysia.