RESULTS: Quality Implementation Framework (QIF) was adopted to develop the breast cancer module as part of the in-house EMR system used at UMMC, called i-Pesakit©. The completion of the i-Pesakit© Breast Cancer Module requires management of clinical data electronically, integration of clinical data from multiple internal clinical departments towards setting up of a research focused patient data governance model. The 14 QIF steps were performed in four main phases involved in this study which are (i) initial considerations regarding host setting, (ii) creating structure for implementation, (iii) ongoing structure once implementation begins, and (iv) improving future applications. The architectural framework of the module incorporates both clinical and research needs that comply to the Personal Data Protection Act.
CONCLUSION: The completion of the UMMC i-Pesakit© Breast Cancer Module required populating EMR including management of clinical data access, establishing information technology and research focused governance model and integrating clinical data from multiple internal clinical departments. This multidisciplinary collaboration has enhanced the quality of data capture in clinical service, benefited hospital data monitoring, quality assurance, audit reporting and research data management, as well as a framework for implementing a responsive EMR for a clinical and research organization in a typical middle-income country setting. Future applications include establishing integration with external organization such as the National Registration Department for mortality data, reporting of institutional data for national cancer registry as well as data mining for clinical research. We believe that integration of multiple clinical visit data sources provides a more comprehensive, accurate and real-time update of clinical data to be used for epidemiological studies and audits.
METHODS: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with qualitative interviews was conducted. Each primary care doctor was considered a cluster and randomized to either the control (usual practice) or intervention (DeSSBack) group. Patient outcomes including Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a 10-point pain rating scale were measured at baseline and 2-month postintervention. The doctors in the intervention group were interviewed to explore feasibility and acceptability of using DeSSBack.
RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with nonspecific LBP participated in this study (intervention n = 23; control n = 13). Fidelity was poor among patients but good among doctors. The RMDQ and anxiety score had medium effect sizes of 0.718 and 0.480, respectively. The effect sizes for pain score (0.070) and depression score were small (0.087). There was appreciable acceptability and satisfaction with use of DeSSBack, as it was helpful in facilitating thorough and standardized management, providing appropriate treatment plans based on risk stratification, improving consultation time, empowering patient-centred care, and easy to use.
CONCLUSIONS: A future cRCT to evaluate the effectiveness of DeSSBack is feasible to be conducted in a primary care setting with minor modifications. DeSSBack was found useful by doctors and can be improved to enhance efficiency.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04959669).