METHODS: Seventy-seven medical doctors and eighty nurses answered a self-administered questionnaire designed to capture demographic data and information regarding abbreviation use in medical practice. Comparisons were made between doctors and nurses with regards to frequency and reasons for using abbreviations; from where abbreviations were learned; frequency of encountering abbreviations in medical practice; prevalence of medical errors due to misinterpretation of abbreviations; and their ability to correctly interpret commonly used abbreviations.

RESULTS: The use of abbreviations was highly prevalent among doctors and nurses. Time saving, avoidance of writing sentences in full and convenience, were the main reasons for using abbreviations. Doctors learned abbreviations from fellow doctors while nurses learned from fellow nurses and doctors. More doctors than nurses reported encountering abbreviations. Both groups reported no difficulties in interpreting abbreviations although nurses reported often resorting to guesswork. Both groups felt abbreviations were necessary and an acceptable part of work. Doctors outperformed nurses in correctly interpreting commonly used standard and non-standard abbreviations.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A literature review was performed on issues, sources, management and approaches to HISs-induced errors. A critical review of selected models was performed in order to identify medical error dimensions and elements based on human, process, technology and organisation factors.

FINDINGS: Various error classifications have resulted in the difficulty to understand the overall error incidents. Most classifications are based on clinical processes and settings. Medical errors are attributed to human, process, technology and organisation factors that influenced and need to be aligned with each other. Although most medical errors are caused by humans, they also originate from other latent factors such as poor system design and training. Existing evaluation models emphasise different aspects of medical errors and could be combined into a comprehensive evaluation model.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Overview of the issues and discourses in HIS-induced errors could divulge its complexity and enable its causal analysis.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This paper helps in understanding various types of HIS-induced errors and promising prevention and management approaches that call for further studies and improvement leading to good practices that help prevent medical errors.

METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary public hospital from July- December 2015 among 276 randomly selected doctors. Data was collected using a standardized and validated self-administered questionnaire intending to measure disclosure and attitudes/perceptions. The scale had four vignettes in total two medical and two surgical. Each vignette consisted of five questions and each question measured the disclosure. Disclosure was categorised as "No Disclosure", "Partial Disclosure" or "Full Disclosure". Data was keyed in and analysed using STATA v 13.0.

METHOD: Twenty terminally ill patients were interviewed with semi-structured questions. The results were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS: Eight themes were generated: the meaning of happiness, connections, mindset, pleasure, health, faith, wealth, and work. Our results showed that happiness is possible at the end of life. Happiness can coexist with pain and suffering. Social connections were the most important element of happiness at the end of life. Wealth and work were given the least emphasis. From the descriptions of our patients, we recognized a tendency for the degree of importance to shift from the hedonic happiness to eudaimonic happiness as patients experienced a terminal illness.