METHODS: We trained twenty-three participants from twelve Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies about international guidelines for medical device vigilance. We developed and used six virtual cases and six questions. We divided participants into six groups and compared their opinions. We also surveyed the country's opinion to investigate the beginning point of 'patient use'. The phases of 'patient use' are divided into: 1) inspecting, 2) preparing, and 3) applying medical device.
RESULTS: As for the question on the beginning point of 'patient use,' 28.6%, 35.7%, and 35.7% of participants provided answers regarding the first, second, and third phases, respectively. In training for applying international guidelines to virtual cases, only one of the six questions reached a consensus between the two groups in all six virtual cases. For the other five questions, different judgments were given in at least two groups.
CONCLUSION: From training courses using virtual cases, we found that there was no consensus on 'patient use' point of view of medical devices. There was a significant difference in applying definitions of adverse events written in guidelines regarding the medical device associated incidents. Our results point out that international harmonization effort is needed not only to harmonize differences in regulations between countries but also to overcome diversity in perspectives existing at the site of medical device use.
METHODS: This 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.
RESULTS: The 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.
CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
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.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 75 residents in the family medicine residency programs in Al Madina, Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was used that includes questions on sociodemographic characteristics and sources of stress and burnout. T test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, and multiple linear regression analysis were employed.
Results: Majority were female (54.7%) and aged 26 to 30 years (84.0%). The significant predictors of burnout in the final model were "tests/examinations" (P = 0.014), "large amount of content to be learnt" (P = 0.016), "unfair assessment from superiors" (P = 0.001), "work demands affect personal/home life" (P = 0.001), and "lack of support from superiors" (P = 0.006).
Conclusion: Burnout is present among family medicine residents at a relatively high percentage. This situation is strongly triggered by work-related stressors, organizational attributes, and system-related attributes, but not socio-demographics of the respondents. Systemic changes to relieve the workload of family medicine residents are recommended to promote effective management of burnout.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study, using the 'Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC)' questionnaire was carried out in 2018 in SGH. Random sampling was used to select a wide range of staff in SGH. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 500 hospital staff consisting of doctors, nurses, pharmacist and other clinical and non-clinical staff, conducted from March to April 2018. A total of 407 respondents successfully completed the questionnaire. Therefore, the final response rate for the survey was 81.4%. This study used SPSS 22.0 for Windows and Hospital Data Entry and Analysis Tool that works with Microsoft Excel developed by United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to perform statistical analysis on the survey data.
RESULTS: Majority of the respondents graded the overall patient safety as acceptable (63.1%) while only 3.4% graded as excellent. The overall patient safety score was 50.1% and most of the scores related to dimensions were lower than the benchmark scores (64.8%). Generally, the mean positive response rate for all the dimensions were lower than composite data of AHRQ, except for "Organizational Learning - Continuous Improvement", which is also the highest positive response rate (80%), higher than AHRQ data (73%). The result showed that SGH has a good opportunity to improve over time as it gains experience and accumulates knowledge. On the other hand, the lowest percentage of positive responses was "Non-punitive response to error" (18%), meaning that most of the staff perceived that they will be punished for medical error.
CONCLUSIONS: The level of patient safety culture in SGH is acceptable and most of the scores related to dimensions were lower than benchmark score. SGH as a learning organisation should also address the issues of staffing, improving handoff and transition and develop a non-punitive culture in response to error.