RESULT: The results showed no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the respondents' characteristics (socio-demographic and occupational/officerelated ergonomic factors) and the outcome variables KAP towards WSC at baseline. For practices towards WSC, both intervention (β 6.8, 95%CI 4.85, 8.72) and time (β 6.2, 95%CI 4.49, 7.94) significantly improved the respondents' practices towards WSC in the per-protocol analysis. In the secondary outcomes, both knowledge of WSC, intervention (β 3.5, 95%CI 2.8, 4.2) and time (β 3.4, 95%CI 2.7, 5.9); and attitudes towards WSC, intervention (β1.7, 95%CI 1.25, 2.23) and time (β 2.3, 95%CI 1.92, 2.76) significantly improved the respondents' level of knowledge and attitudes respectively towards WSC.
CONCLUSION: The intervention, WSCHEM, was effective in improving the administrative workers' KAP towards WSC, as demonstrated by the significance between and within-group differences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CKD-CHECK (CKD-CHECK EGFR Chart in Kidney disease) is a toolkit that was developed to auto-generate patients' eGFR trend using a line graph, displaying the trend visually over a year. It identifies patients with rapid CKD progression, triggers the doctors to order appropriate tests (proteinuria quantification or renal imaging) and helps in decision making (continued monitoring at primary care level or referral to nephrologist). The toolkit was piloted among medical officers practising in a hospital-based primary care clinic treating patients with eGFR<60ml/min/1.73m2 using an interventional before-after study design from February to May 2022. In the preintervention period, the CKD patients were managed based on standard practice. The doctors then used the CKDCHECK toolkit on the same group of CKD patients during the intervention period. The feasibility and acceptability of the toolkit was assessed at the end of the study period using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) questionnaires. All patients' clinical data and referral rate were collected retrospectively through medical files and electronic data systems. Comparison between the pre- and post-intervention group were analysed using paired t-test and McNemar test, with statistical significance p value of <0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 25 medical officers used the toolkit on 60 CKD patients. The medical officers found the CKD-CHECK toolkit to be highly acceptable and feasible in primary care setting. The baseline characteristics of the patients were a mean age of 72 years old, predominantly females and Chinese ethnicity. Majority of the CKD patients had diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidemia. The numbers of CKD rapid progressors was similar (26.7% in the preintervention group vs 33.3% in the post-intervention group). There were no significant differences in terms of proteinuria assessment and ultrasound kidney for CKD rapid progressors before and after the intervention. However, a significant number of CKD rapid progressors were referred to nephrologists after the use of CKD-CHECK toolkit (p=0.016).
CONCLUSIONS: CKD-CHECK toolkit is acceptable and feasible to be used in primary care. Preliminary findings show that the CKD-CHECK toolkit improved the primary care doctor's referral of rapid CKD progressors to nephrologists.