METHODOLOGY: Patients' socio-demographic and epidemiological data, clinical features, laboratory findings and clinical outcomes were extracted using a data sheet.
RESULTS: The median patient age was 25 [interquartile range (IQR)] 20-44) years, and most of patients were male (68.7%) and of Malaysian nationality (88.4%). Almost half of the patients were from a case cluster related to a religious event (48.3%) and 12.9% had a history of overseas travel. A total of 33.3% of patients were not related to any case cluster, i.e. sporadic cases. Radiological investigation showed that 13.6% of the patients had chest X-ray changes and all laboratory parameters were within the normal ranges. Sixty-six patients (44.9%) experienced symptoms. The most common symptoms were rhinitis (66.7%), followed by fever (19.7%) and cough (15.2%). Age, gender, case cluster, comorbidity status, haemoglobin, albumin, total protein, bilirubin total and alkaline phosphatase level were associated with symptomatic status.
CONCLUSIONS: In this single-centre study, COVID-19 infection led not only to case clusters, but also to sporadic infections, with patients being either symptomatic or asymptomatic. These sporadic cases and asymptomatic patients may hamper effective contact tracing, leading to rapid human-to-human transmission in our population. Future studies on the prevalence and clinical significance of asymptomatic and presymptomatic COVID-19 patients would pre-emptively address issues on further containment of the pandemic.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among doctors and nurses in the medical department in Pusat Perubatan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia between November 18, 2020 and December 18, 2020 during the third wave of COVID-19 epidemic in Malaysia. We studied the knowledge and practice of preventive measures of COVID-19 among doctors and nurses in the COVID-19 or sudden acute respiratory infection (SARI) wards and general medical wards. Data was collected using a validated self-designed google form online-questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 407 subjects completed the study and 80.8% were females; 55.8% were aged between 30-39 years; 46.4% were medical doctors. The main source of COVID-19 knowledge was the Ministry of Health Malaysia (MOH) website (35.1%). Majority (97%) had sufficient knowledge and 82% practiced proper preventive measures. Doctors had a higher mean knowledge score compared to nurses (p < 0.001). HCWs working in COVID-19 or SARI wards scored higher in knowledge questions compared to those in the general medical wards (p = 0.020). Nurses practiced better preventive measures (p < 0.001). Good knowledge could not be predicted based on professions (OR: 0.222, 95% CI: 0.048 - 1.028, p = 0.054). Majority were unable to recall the proper steps of donning (85.8%) and doffing (98.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Although majority had good knowledge and practiced proper preventive measures, there was a poor recall in donning and doffing steps regardless of place of practice. The MOH website is a useful platform for tailored continuous medical education and regular updates on COVID-19. Regular training and retraining on donning and doffing of PPE is needed to bridge this gap.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, potential causes and management of hyponatraemia and to identify factors associated with severity of hyponatraemia among older persons in a primary care setting.
METHODS: Electronic records were searched to identify all cases aged ≥60 years with a serum sodium <135mmol/l, attending outpatient clinic in 2014. Patients' medical records with the available blood test results of glucose, potassium, urea and creatinine were reviewed.
RESULTS: Of the 21,544 elderly, 5873 patients (27.3%) had electrolyte profile tests. 403 (6.9%) had hyponatraemia in at least one blood test. Medical records were available for 253, mean age 72.9±7.3 years, 178 (70.4%) had mild hyponatraemia, 75 (29.6%) had moderate to severe hyponatraemia. Potential causes were documented in 101 (40%). Patients with moderate to severe hyponatraemia were five times more likely to have a cause of hyponatraemia documented (p<0.01). Medications were the commonest documented cause of hyponatraemia (31.7%). Hydrochlorothiazide use was attributed in 25 (78.1%) of 32 with medication-associated hyponatraemia. Repeat renal profile (89%) was the commonest management of hypotonic hyponatraemia.
CONCLUSION: Whilst hyponatraemia was common in the clinic setting, many cases were not acknowledged and had no clear management strategies. In view of mild hyponatraemia has deleterious consequences, future studies should determine whether appropriate management of mild hyponatraemia will lead to clinical improvement.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 12 private hospitals in Malaysia. A total of 652 (response rate = 61.8%) nurses participated in the study. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaire on nurses' characteristic, adverse events and events reporting, and perceived patient safety.
RESULTS: Patient and family complaints events were the most common adverse events in Malaysian private hospitals as result of increased cost of care (3.24 ± 0.95) and verbal miscommunication (3.52 ± 0.87).
CONCLUSION: Hospital size, accreditation status, teaching status, and nurse ethnicity had a mixed effect on patient safety, perceived adverse events, and events reporting. Policy makers can benefit that errors are related to several human and system related factors. Several system reforms and multidisciplinary efforts were recommended for optimizing health, healthcare and preventing patient harm.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.