Cited by 79Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsMedical Coding and Health Information

Medical errors in primary care clinics – a cross sectional study

Open access
Khoo, Ee Ming, Lee, Wai Khew, Sararaks, Sondi, Abdul Samad, Azah, Liew, Su May, Cheong, Ai Theng, Ibrahim, Mohd Yusof, Su, Sebrina HC +4 more·2012·BMC Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is vital in patient care. There is a lack of studies on medical errors in primary care settings. The aim of the study is to determine the extent of diagnostic inaccuracies and management errors in public funded primary care clinics. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in twelve public funded primary care clinics in Malaysia. A total of 1753 medical records were randomly selected in 12 primary care clinics in 2007 and were reviewed by trained family physicians for diagnostic, management and documentation errors, potential errors causing serious harm and likelihood of preventability of such errors. RESULTS: The majority of patient encounters (81%) were with medical assistants. Diagnostic errors were present in 3.6% (95% CI: 2.2, 5.0) of medical records and management errors in 53.2% (95% CI: 46.3, 60.2). For management errors, medication errors were present in 41.1% (95% CI: 35.8, 46.4) of records, investigation errors in 21.7% (95% CI: 16.5, 26.8) and decision making errors in 14.5% (95% CI: 10.8, 18.2). A total of 39.9% (95% CI: 33.1, 46.7) of these errors had the potential to cause serious harm. Problems of documentation including illegible handwriting were found in 98.0% (95% CI: 97.0, 99.1) of records. Nearly all errors (93.5%) detected were considered preventable. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of medical errors was high in primary care clinics particularly with documentation and medication errors. Nearly all were preventable. Remedial intervention addressing completeness of documentation and prescriptions are likely to yield reduction of errors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2296-13-127

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Variability in the quality of documentation can impact patient outcomes and continuity of care.

    “Moreover, the variability in the quality of documentation—ranging from omissions of critical details to inconsistent formatting—can impact patient outcomes and continuity of care [10, 11].”

    From Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Powered Documentation Systems in Healthcare: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results (Documentation errors; page not provided) document frequent omissions, and the Conclusion says more complete documentation is likely to reduce errors and improve patient safety. The paper does not address continuity of care or identify inconsistent formatting as a documentation problem; it discusses illegible handwriting instead. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khoo, E. M., Lee, W. K., Sararaks, S., Abdul Samad, A., Liew, S. M., Cheong, A. T., Ibrahim, M. Y., Su, S. H., Mohd Hanafiah, A. N., Maskon, K., Ismail, R., & Hamid, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Malaya (MY)
  • Ministry of Health (MY)
  • Universiti Putra Malaysia (MY)
Corresponding author
Khoo, Ee Ming
Venue
BMC Family Practice
Published
2012-12
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
127-127
ISSN
1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027611417
Cited by
78
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
FWCI
9.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The University of Malaya Research Repository (University of Malaya) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
medical errors, patient safety, primary care, diagnostic errors, management errors, medication errors, documentation errors, handwriting legibility, preventable errors, Malaysia
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care Facilities, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diagnostic Errors, Documentation, Humans, Malaysia, Medication Errors, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Medical Errors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review