IADR Abstract Archives
Malaysian Dentists’ Perception of Patient Safety – A Qualitative Study
Objectives: This study aims to explore Malaysian dentists’ perceptions of the concept of patient safety, current patient safety measures and further measures that can be implemented.
Methods: Non-structured in-depth interviews of roughly 40 – 60 minutes were conducted and audio recorded. Participants were identified using purposive sampling according to a sampling grid and Snowball sampling whereby existing participants were asked to introduce their colleagues. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the Framework Method whereby the transcribed data was systematically sifted and indexed according to themes.
Results: The data collected was classified into 4 main themes. In the ‘Concepts and definitions’ theme we found that dentists have contrasting concepts, where one dentist felt that patient safety is compromised when any unwanted incident occurs, whereas another felt that it is only compromised in a case of death. Under the theme ‘Attitudes’, a dentist felt that one’s practice should be of high enough standards to treat one’s own child, while another dentist said many practices cut costs on infection control to make more money. In the theme ‘Factors associated with patient safety’, factors were classified into 3 types, namely, direct, indirect and organizational factors, for example, infection control, training and regulation respectively. Under the theme ‘Patient safety controls’, many dentists expressed that while existing regulations are adequate, enforcement is lacking and a majority of them felt that it can be improved in future.
Conclusions: Through this study, a variation in dentists’ concepts and definitions of patient safety was identified. Not all dentists placed the same emphasis or importance on patient safety. There seems to be significant confusion among dentists regarding what is currently being done to enforce patient safety regulations. In conclusion, collaboration and cooperation among dentists is needed to achieve a mutual understanding of patient safety and how it can be improved.
Methods: Non-structured in-depth interviews of roughly 40 – 60 minutes were conducted and audio recorded. Participants were identified using purposive sampling according to a sampling grid and Snowball sampling whereby existing participants were asked to introduce their colleagues. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the Framework Method whereby the transcribed data was systematically sifted and indexed according to themes.
Results: The data collected was classified into 4 main themes. In the ‘Concepts and definitions’ theme we found that dentists have contrasting concepts, where one dentist felt that patient safety is compromised when any unwanted incident occurs, whereas another felt that it is only compromised in a case of death. Under the theme ‘Attitudes’, a dentist felt that one’s practice should be of high enough standards to treat one’s own child, while another dentist said many practices cut costs on infection control to make more money. In the theme ‘Factors associated with patient safety’, factors were classified into 3 types, namely, direct, indirect and organizational factors, for example, infection control, training and regulation respectively. Under the theme ‘Patient safety controls’, many dentists expressed that while existing regulations are adequate, enforcement is lacking and a majority of them felt that it can be improved in future.
Conclusions: Through this study, a variation in dentists’ concepts and definitions of patient safety was identified. Not all dentists placed the same emphasis or importance on patient safety. There seems to be significant confusion among dentists regarding what is currently being done to enforce patient safety regulations. In conclusion, collaboration and cooperation among dentists is needed to achieve a mutual understanding of patient safety and how it can be improved.