Introduction: Lower limb cellulitis is a common superficial skin infection that leads to morbidity and mortality. Cellulitis risk factors have been well studied in many countries, but to date, not in Malaysia. Geographical and climate variables may affect risk factors. Early identification of the preventable risk factors is vital to prevent cellulitis and improve holistic patient care. Objective: To determine the risk factors of lower limb cellulitis amongst hospitalized patients at a tertiary center. Methods: A prospective case-control study of hospitalized patients with a clinical diagnosis of lower limb cellulitis was conducted at UKM Medical Centre, January–August 2015. Each patient was compared to two age and gender-matched control patients. All patients were interviewed and examined for risk factors of cellulitis. Results: A total of 96 cellulitis patients and 192 controls participated in this study. The cellulitis patients included 61 males and 35 females with a mean age of 62.07±15.43 years. The majority of patients were experiencing their first episode of cellulitis. Multivariate analysis showed a previous history of cellulitis (OR 25.53; 95% CI 4.73–137.79), sole anomalies (OR 16.32; 95% CI 6.65–40.06), ulceration (OR 14.86; 95% CI 1.00–219.39), venous insufficiency (OR 10.46 95% CI 1.98–55.22), interdigital intertrigo (OR 8.86; 95% CI 3.33-23.56), eczema (OR 5.74; 95% CI 0.96.–34.21), and limb edema (OR 3.95; 95% CI 1.82–8.59) were the significant risk factors for lower limb cellulitis. Conclusion: Previous cellulitis and factors causing skin barrier disruption such as sole anomalies, ulceration, venous insufficiency, eczema, intertrigo, and limb edema were the risk factors for lower limb cellulitis. Physician awareness, early detection, and treatment of these factors at the primary care level may prevent hospital admission and morbidity associated with cellulitis.

Introduction: Pneumonia continues to be as one of the top causes of hospitalisations and deaths in Malaysia despite the advancement in prevention and treatment of pneumonia. One of the possible explanations is the frequent misdiagnosis of pneumonia which had been reported elsewhere but such data is not available locally. Objectives: This is an audit project aiming to evaluate the proportion of misdiagnosis among hospitalised communityacquired pneumonia (CAP) patients in the Respiratory wards of Penang General Hospital based on their initial presentation data, and their associated outcomes. Methods: We reviewed the medical notes and initial chest radiographs of 188 CAP patients who were admitted to respiratory wards. Misdiagnosis was defined as cases which lack suggestive clinical features and/or chest radiograph changes. In-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS) were the outcomes of interest. Results: The study found that 38.8% (n=73) of the hospitalised CAP patients were misdiagnosed. The most common alternative diagnosis was upper respiratory tract infection (32.8%, n=24). There was no statistical difference between misdiagnosis and CAP patients in the demographic and clinical variables collected. In terms of outcomes, misdiagnosed patients were discharged earlier (mean LOS= 3.5±3.28 days vs. 7.7±15.29 days, p=0.03) but the in-hospital mortality difference was not statistically significant (p=0.07). Conclusions: One third of our CAP admissions were misdiagnosed. Although initial misdiagnosis of CAP in our study did not show any increase in mortality or morbidity, a proper diagnosis of CAP will be helpful in preventing inappropriate prescription of antibiotics and unnecessary admission.