BackgroundPatient safety is vital in patient care. There is a lack of studies on medical errors in primary care settings. The aim of the study is to determine the extent of diagnostic inaccuracies and management errors in public funded primary care clinics.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study conducted in twelve public funded primary care clinics in Malaysia. A total of 1753 medical records were randomly selected in 12 primary care clinics in 2007 and were reviewed by trained family physicians for diagnostic, management and documentation errors, potential errors causing serious harm and likelihood of preventability of such errors.ResultsThe majority of patient encounters (81%) were with medical assistants. Diagnostic errors were present in 3.6% (95% CI: 2.2, 5.0) of medical records and management errors in 53.2% (95% CI: 46.3, 60.2). For management errors, medication errors were present in 41.1% (95% CI: 35.8, 46.4) of records, investigation errors in 21.7% (95% CI: 16.5, 26.8) and decision making errors in 14.5% (95% CI: 10.8, 18.2). A total of 39.9% (95% CI: 33.1, 46.7) of these errors had the potential to cause serious harm. Problems of documentation including illegible handwriting were found in 98.0% (95% CI: 97.0, 99.1) of records. Nearly all errors (93.5%) detected were considered preventable.ConclusionsThe occurrence of medical errors was high in primary care clinics particularly with documentation and medication errors. Nearly all were preventable. Remedial intervention addressing completeness of documentation and prescriptions are likely to yield reduction of errors.

Introduction COVID-19 pandemic is having a devastating effect on the mental health and wellbeing of healthcare providers (HCPs) globally. This review is aimed at determining the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, fear, burnout and resilience and its associated factors among HCPs in Asia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods We performed literature search using 4 databases from Medline, Cinahl, PubMed and Scopus from inception up to March 15, 2021 and selected relevant cross-sectional studies. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence while risk factors were reported in odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Results We included 148 studies with 159,194 HCPs and the pooled prevalence for depression was 37.5% (95%CI: 33.8–41.3), anxiety 39.7(95%CI: 34.3–45.1), stress 36.4% (95%CI: 23.2–49.7), fear 71.3% (95%CI: 54.6–88.0), burnout 68.3% (95%CI: 54.0–82.5), and low resilience was 16.1% (95%CI: 12.8–19.4), respectively. The heterogeneity was high (I2>99.4%). Meta-analysis reported that both females (OR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.30–1.68) and nurses (OR = 1.21; 95%CI = 1.02–1.45) were at increased risk of having depression and anxiety [(Female: OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.49–1.85), (Nurse: OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.16–1.58)]. Females were at increased risk of getting stress (OR = 1.59; 95%CI = 1.28–1.97). Conclusion In conclusion, one third of HCPs suffered from depression, anxiety and stress and more than two third of HCPs suffered from fear and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia.

No abstract

BackgroundMore than half of the general population does not attend screening for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) hence they are unaware of their risks. The objective of this study was to explore the views and experiences of the public in deciding to undergo health checks for CVD prevention.MethodsThis was a qualitative study utilising the constructivist grounded theory approach. A total of 31 individuals aged 30 years and above from the community were sampled purposively. Eight interviews and six focus groups were involved, using a semi-structured topic guide.ResultsA conceptual framework was developed to explain the public’s decision-making process on health check participation for CVD prevention. The intention to participate in health checks was influenced by the interplay between perceived relevance and the individual’s readiness to face the outcome of health checks. Health checks were deemed relevant if people perceived themselves to be at risk of CVD and there was an advantage in knowing their cardiovascular status. People were ready to face the outcome of health checks if they wanted to know the results and were prepared to deal with the subsequent management. The decision to participate in health checks was also influenced by external factors such as the views of significant others, and the accessibility and availability of resources including time and finances.ConclusionsThe intention to screen for CVD is motivated by two internal factors: the perceived relevance of the disease and readiness to face screening outcomes. Strategies targeting the internal decision-making process may prove to be key in improving the uptake of screening.

Background and objectiveEarly diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care settings is difficult to achieve chiefly due to lack of availability of spirometry. This study estimated the prevalence of airflow limitation among chronic smokers using a handheld spirometer in this setting.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study performed on consecutive patients who were ≥40 years old with ≥10 pack-years smoking history. Face-to-face interviews were carried out to obtain demographic data and relevant information. Handheld spirometry was performed according to a standard protocol using the COPd-6 device (Model 4000, Vitalograph, Ennis, Ireland) in addition to standard spirometry. Airflow limitation was defined as ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced expiratory volume in 6 s <0.75 (COPd-6) or FEV1/forced vital capacity <0.7. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to determine predictors of airflow limitation.ResultsA total of 416 patients were recruited with mean age of 53 years old. The prevalence of airflow limitation was 10.6% (n = 44) with COPd-6 versus 6% as gauged using standard spirometry. Risk factors for airflow limitation were age >65 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.732 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.100–1.280), a history of ‘bad health’ (OR 2.524, 95% CI: 1.037–6.142) and low to normal body mass index (OR 2.914, 95% CI: 1.191–7.190).ConclusionsIn a primary care setting, handheld spirometry (COPd-6) found a prevalence of airflow limitation of ∼10% in smokers. Patients were older, not overweight and had an ill-defined history of health problems.SUMMARY AT A GLANCEPrevalence of COPD is unknown in Malaysia. The prevalence of COPD using a handheld spirometer (COPd-6TM) was 10.6% versus 6% as gauged using standard spirometry. Predictors of COPD were older age, lower BMI and a history of ‘bad health’. Case-finding for COPD should be targeted in this special population.