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.

ObjectiveAccurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care.MethodsA cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using χ2, correlation and independent t-tests.ResultsWe recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS.Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636).ConclusionsThe majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.

This study aimed to develop an intervention to reduce medical errors and to determine if the intervention can reduce medical errors in public funded primary care clinics. A controlled interventional trial was conducted in 12 conveniently selected primary care clinics. Random samples of outpatient medical records were selected and reviewed by family physicians for documentation, diagnostic, and management errors at baseline and 3 months post intervention. The intervention package comprised educational training, structured process change, review methods, and patient education. A significant reduction was found in overall documentation error rates between intervention (Pre 98.3% [CI 97.1-99.6]; Post 76.1% [CI 68.1-84.1]) and control groups (Pre 97.4% [CI 95.1-99.8]; Post 89.5% [85.3-93.6]). Within the intervention group, overall management errors reduced from 54.0% (CI 49.9-58.0) to 36.6% (CI 30.2-43.1) and medication error from 43.2% (CI 39.2-47.1) to 25.2% (CI 19.9-30.5). This low-cost intervention was useful to reduce medical errors in resource-constrained settings.

There has been an epidemiological transition in morbidity and mortality patterns in developing countries. This study aimed to determine whether there was an accompanying change in disease presentation in primary care. This was a cross-sectional study conducted at 12 public primary care clinics in Malaysia. Outpatient medical records were randomly selected and reviewed to identify patients' reasons for encounter. The overall retrieval of records was 99.1% (n=1,753; range 95.7-100.0% 16.5, 25.8), rawatan susulan untuk penyakit kronik (19.6%; 95% CI 12.7, 26.6) dan demam (18.4%; 95% CI 14.2, 22.5). Sebab kedatangan pesakit yang paling utama di Malaysia Barat ialah rawatan susulan untuk penyakit kronik manakala di Malaysia Timur, sebab paling utama ialah batuk (25.2%; 95% CI 16.8, 33.6) dan demam (21.7%; 95% CI 14.3, 29.0