Introduction: The Patient Assessment on Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was developed to assess patients’ perspectives on the alignment of primary care to the chronic care model. The Malay PACIC has been validated; however, Malaysia is a multicultural society, and English is spoken by many Malaysians and expatriates. We sought to validate the English version of the PACIC among patients with diabetes mellitus in Malaysia, as Malaysians may interpret a questionnaire that was originally developed for Americans in a different way. Method: This study was conducted between November and December 2016 at two primary care clinics that offered integrated diabetes care at the time. These sites were selected to assess the discriminative validity of the PACIC. Site 1 is a Malaysian Ministry of Health-run primary care clinic while site 2 is a university-run hospital-based primary care clinic. Only site 1 annually monitors patient performance and encourages them to achieve their HbA1c targets using a standard checklist. Patients with diabetes mellitus who understood English were recruited. Participants were asked to fill out the PACIC at baseline and two weeks later. Results: A total of 200 out of the 212 invited agreed to participate (response rate=94.3%). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 5-factor structure of the PACIC. The overall PACIC score and the score in two of the five domains were significantly higher at site 1 than at site 2. The overall Cronbach’s alpha was 0.924. At test-retest, intra-class correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.641 to 0.882. Conclusion: The English version of the PACIC was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of care among patients with diabetes mellitus in Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) was the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide in 2008 (1.23 million cases, 9.7%). CRC screening was shown to be effective in reducing 70% of CRC mortality. However, the screening rate for CRC remains poor. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among primary care physicians (PCPs) in public primary care clinics in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A 30-item self-administered questionnaire was used to assess the knowledge and practice of CRC screening. RESULTS: The response rate was 86.4% (n = 197/228). Less than half (39.1%) of the respondents answered correctly for all risk stratification scenarios. Mean knowledge score on CRC screening modalities was 48.7% ± 17.7%. The knowledge score was positively associated with having postgraduate educational qualification and usage of screening guidelines. Overall, 69.9% of PCPs reported that they practised screening. However, of these, only 25.9% of PCPs screened over 50% of all eligible patients. PCPs who agreed that screening was cost-effective (odds ratio [OR] 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69‒6.59) and those who agreed that they had adequate resources in their locality (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.01‒3.68) were more likely to practise screening. Knowledge score was not associated with the practice of screening (p = 0.185). CONCLUSION Knowledge and practice of CRC screening was inadequate among PCPs. Knowledge of screening did not translate into its practice. PCPs' perceptions about cost-effectiveness of screening and adequate resources were important determinants of the practice of screening.

INTRODUCTIONThe aim of this study was to determine the extent to which primary care doctors assessed patients newly diagnosed with hypertension for the risk factors of cardiovascular disease (CVD) during the patients' first clinic visit for hypertension. The study also aimed to examine the trend of assessment for CVD risk factors over a 15-year period.

METHODSThis retrospective study was conducted between January and May 2012. Data was extracted from the paper-based medical records of patients with hypertension using a 1:4 systematic random sampling method. Data collected included CVD risk factors and a history of target organ damage (TOD), which were identified during the patient's first visit to the primary care doctor for hypertension, as well as the results of the physical examinations and investigations performed during the same visit.

RESULTSA total of 1,060 medical records were reviewed. We found that assessment of CVD risk factors during the first clinic visit for hypertension was poor (5.4%-40.8%). Assessments for a history of TOD were found in only 5.8%-11.8% of the records, and documented physical examinations and investigations for the assessment of TOD and secondary hypertension ranged from 0.1%-63.3%. Over time, there was a decreasing trend in the percentage of documented physical examinations performed, but an increasing trend in the percentage of investigations ordered.

CONCLUSIONThere was poor assessment of the patients' CVD risk factors, secondary causes of hypertension and TOD at their first clinic visit for hypertension. The trends observed in the assessment suggest an over-reliance on investigations over clinical examinations.

Aged ; Cardiovascular Diseases ; diagnosis ; Female ; Humans ; Hypertension ; diagnosis ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Physicians, Family ; Primary Health Care ; methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment ; Risk Factors