Electronic clinical decision support tool for assessing stomach symptoms in primary care (ECASS): a feasibility study.

Simple item page
dc.creatorRubin, Greg
dc.creatorWalter, Fiona M
dc.creatorEmery, Jon
dc.creatorHamilton, Willie
dc.creatorHoare, Zoe
dc.creatorHowse, Jenny
dc.creatorNixon, Catherine
dc.creatorSrivastava, Tushar
dc.creatorThomas, Chloe
dc.creatorUkoumunne, Obioha C
dc.creatorUsher-Smith, Juliet A
dc.creatorWhyte, Sophie
dc.creatorNeal, Richard D
dc.date2021-02-26T00:30:55Z
dc.date2021-02-26T00:30:55Z
dc.date2021-03-18
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-03T02:35:34Z
dc.descriptionOBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a definitive trial in primary care of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) for possible oesophago-gastric (O-G) cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: Feasibility study in 42 general practices in two regions of England, cluster randomised controlled trial design without blinding, nested qualitative and health economic evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 55 years or older, presenting to their general practitioner (GP) with symptoms associated with O-G cancer. 530 patients (mean age 68 years, 58% female) participated. INTERVENTION: Practices randomised 1:1 to usual care (control) or to receive a previously piloted eCDS tool for suspected cancer (intervention), for use at the discretion of the GPs, supported by a theory-based implementation package and ongoing support. We conducted semistructured interviews with GPs in intervention practices. Recruitment lasted 22 months. OUTCOMES: Patient participation rate, use of eCDS, referrals and route to diagnosis, O-G cancer diagnoses; acceptability to GPs; cost-effectiveness. Participants followed up 6 months after index encounter. RESULTS: From control and intervention practices, we screened 3841 and 1303 patients, respectively; 1189 and 434 were eligible, 392 and 138 consented to participate. Ten patients (1.9%) had O-G cancer. eCDS was used eight times in total by five unique users. GPs experienced interoperability problems between the eCDS tool and their clinical system and also found it did not fit with their workflow. Unexpected restrictions on software installation caused major problems with implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The conduct of this study was hampered by technical limitations not evident during an earlier pilot of the eCDS tool, and by regulatory controls on software installation introduced by primary care trusts early in the study. This eCDS tool needed to integrate better with clinical workflow; even then, its use for suspected cancer may be infrequent. Any definitive trial of eCDS for cancer diagnosis should only proceed after addressing these constraints. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN125595588.
dc.formatElectronic
dc.formatapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
dc.identifier2044-6055
dc.identifierhttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/318153
dc.identifier10.17863/CAM.65269
dc.identifier2044-6055
dc.identifier.urihttps://repo.dare.co.zw/handle/123456789/167749
dc.languageeng
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherBMJ
dc.publisherhttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041795
dc.rightsAll rights reserved
dc.rightshttp://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved
dc.subjectgastrointestinal tumours
dc.subjectprimary care
dc.subjectrisk management
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectDecision Support Systems, Clinical
dc.subjectElectronics
dc.subjectEngland
dc.subjectFeasibility Studies
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectPrimary Health Care
dc.subjectStomach
dc.titleElectronic clinical decision support tool for assessing stomach symptoms in primary care (ECASS): a feasibility study.
dc.typeArticle

Files

Collections

University of Cambridge Apollo