Introduction: Open disclosure is poorly understood in Malaysia but is an ethical and professional responsibility. The objectives of this study were to determine: (1) the perception of parents regarding the severity of medical error in relation to medication use or diagnosis; (2) the preference of parents for information following the medical error and its relation to severity; and (3) the preference of parents with regards to disciplinary action, reporting, and legal action. Methods: We translated and contextualised a questionnaire developed from a previous study. The questionnaire consisted of four case vignettes that described the following: medication error with a lifelong complication; diagnostic error with a lifelong complication; diagnostic error without lifelong effect; and medication error without lifelong effect. Each case vignette was followed by a series of questions examining the subject’s perception on the above areas. We also determined the content validity of the questionnaire. We invited parents of Malaysian children admitted to the paediatric wards of Tuanku Jaafar Hospital to participate in the study. Results: One hundred and twenty-three parents participated in the study. The majority of parents wanted to be told regarding the event. As the severity of the case vignettes increased, the desire for information, remedial action, acknowledgement of responsibility, compensation, punishment, legal action, and reporting to a higher agency also increased. The findings did not have strong evidence of a relationship with subject’s demographics. Conclusion: This study gives insights into previously unexplored perspectives and preferences of parents in Malaysia regarding open disclosure. It also highlights the opportunity for more research in this area with potentially broad applications.
Disclosure ; Professional-Patient Relations ; Patient Rights

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.