Background: Little is known about the views of faculty members who train medical students concerning open disclosure. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine the views of faculty in a medical school on: 1 what constitutes a medical error and the severity of such an error in relation to medication use or diagnosis; 2 information giving following such an adverse event, based on severity; and 3 acknowledgement of responsibility, remedial action, compensation, disciplinary action, legal action, and reporting to a higher body in relation to such adverse event. Methods: We adapted and contextualized a questionnaire developed from a previous study. The questionnaire had 4 case vignettes that described 1 clear medication error with lifelong disability; 2 possible diagnostic error with lifelong disability; 3 possible diagnostic error without harm; and 4 clear medication error without harm. We invited all faculty members attached to the medical school at the International Medical University to participate in the study. Results: Seventy faculty members took part. Faculty members viewed a medical error as having taken place depending on how clearly an error had occurred (94% and 73% versus 53% and 27%). They viewed cases as more severe based on the severity of complications (85% and 46% versus 5% and 10%). With increasing severity, they tended to attribute responsibility for the event and the duty to disclose towards more senior clinicians. They were also more agreeable with remedial action, compensation, disciplinary action, and reporting to a higher agency. There was no strong evidence of association between these areas and the demographics of faculty members. Conclusions: Faculty members are more likely to perceive an error had occurred depending on the clarity of the circumstances. They viewed severity based on the presence of complications. Severity determined how they attributed responsibility, duty to disclose, and other areas related to open disclosure.

INTRODUCTION: Haze is a recurrent problem in Southeast Asia. Exposure to haze is linked to ophthalmic, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and mortality. In this study, we investigated the role of demographic factors, knowledge and perceived risk in influencing protective behaviours during the 2013 haze in Singapore. METHODS: We evaluated 696 adults in a cross-sectional study. Participants were sampled via a 2-stage simple random sampling without replacement from a large residential district in Singapore in 2015. The questionnaire measured the participant's knowledge, perceived risk and behaviours during the Southeast Asian haze crisis in 2013. Reliability and validity of the questionnaire were assessed using comparative fit index (≥0.96) and root mean square error of approximation (≤0.05). We performed structural equation modelling to examine the relationship between the hypothesised factors and protective behaviours. RESULTS: More than 95% of the individuals engaged in at least 1 form of protective behaviour. Knowledge was strongly associated with protective behaviours via direct effect (β=0.45, 95% CI 0.19-0.69, CONCLUSION Knowledge was associated with protective behaviours, suggesting the importance of public education. Efforts should target those of lower education level and smokers. The wearing of N95 masks correlates with uptake of other protective behaviours.
Adult ; Asia, Southeastern ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Ethnic Groups ; Humans ; Minority Groups ; Reproducibility of Results ; Singapore/epidemiology*

Background: The PLASMIC score is a convenient tool for predicting ADAMTS13 activity of ＜10%.Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is widely used as a marker of haemolysis in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) monitoring, and could be used as a replacement marker for lysis. We aimed to validate the PLASMIC score in a multi-centre Asia Pacific region, and to explore whether LDH could be used as a replacement marker for lysis. Methods: Records of patients with thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) were reviewed. Patients’ ADAMTS13 activity levels were obtained, along with clinical/laboratory findings relevant to the PLASMIC score. Both PLASMIC scores and PLASMIC-LDH scores, in which LDH replaced traditional lysis markers, were calculated. We generated a receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve and compared the area under the curve values (AUC) to determine the predictive ability of each score. Results: 46 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 34 had ADAMTS13 activity levels of ＜10%. When the patients were divided into intermediate-to-high risk (scores 5‒7) and low risk (scores 0‒4), the PLASMIC score showed a sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 58.3%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 86.8% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 87.5%. The PLASMIC-LDH score had a sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 33.3%, with a PPV of 80.5% and NPV of 80.0%. Conclusion Our study validated the utility of the PLASMIC score, and demonstrated PLASMIC-LDH as a reasonable alternative in the absence of traditional lysis markers, to help identify high-risk patients for treatment via plasma exchange.