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.

METHOD: A qualitative case study evaluation was conducted at a 620-bed public teaching hospital in Malaysia using interview, observation, and document analysis to investigate the features and functions of alert appropriateness and workflow-related issues in cardiological and dermatological settings. The current state map for medication prescribing process was also modelled to identify problems pertinent to CDS alert appropriateness.

RESULTS: The main findings showed that CDS was not well designed to fit into a clinician's workflow due to influencing factors such as technology (usability, alert content, and alert timing), human (training, perception, knowledge, and skills), organizational (rules and regulations, privacy, and security), and processes (documenting patient information, overriding default option, waste, and delay) impeding the use of CDS with its alert function. We illustrated how alert affect workflow in clinical processes using a Lean tool known as value stream mapping. This study also proposes how CDS alerts should be integrated into clinical workflows to optimize their potential to enhance patient safety.

METHODS: A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed.

RESULTS: The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue".