Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2012; 51(04): 281-294
DOI: 10.3414/ME11-01-0084
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Present Situation and Prospect of Medical Knowledge Based Systems in German-speaking Countries

Results of an Online Survey
C. Spreckelsen
1   Institute for Medical Informatics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
,
K. Spitzer
1   Institute for Medical Informatics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
,
W. Honekamp
2   Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Faculty, University of Applied Sciences Zittau/Görlitz, Görlitz, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received:05 November 2011

accepted:19 January 2012

Publication Date:
20 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background: After a decrease of interest in classical medical expert systems, the publication activity concerning the medical application of Artificial Intelligence and the interest in medical decision support have markedly increased. Nonetheless, no systematic exploratory study has yet been carried out, which directly considers the actual fields of applications, exemplary approaches, obstacles, challenges, and future prospect as seen by pioneering users and developers in a given region.

Objectives: This paper reports the results of an online survey designed to fill this gap with the “Knowledge Based Systems” working group of the German Society for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (GMDS) in 2010.

Methods: The survey was based on an online questionnaire (5 single and multiple choice questions, 8 Likert-scaled items, 7 free text questions) consented to by the working group. The answers were analyzed by descriptive statistics and a qualitative analysis (bottom-up coding). All academic institutions of Medical Informatics in the German-speaking countries and contributors reporting KBS-related projects at the relevant scientific conferences and in a journal specialized in the field were invited to participate.

Results: The survey reached a response rate of 33.4%. The results show a gap between the reported obstacles of medical KBS (mainly low acceptance and rare use in clinical practice) and their future prospect as stated by the participants. Problems previously discussed in the literature like low acceptance, integration, and sustainability of KBS projects were confirmed. The current situation was characterized by naming exemplary existing systems and specifying promising fields of application.

Conclusions: The field of KBS in medicine is more diversified and has evolved beyond expectations in the German-speaking countries.

Keywords

Knowledge based systems - medicine - online survey - German-speaking countries - potential - future
 

  • References

  • 1 Breuker JA, Wielinga BJ. Model Driven Knowledge Acquisition. In: Guida P, Tasso G. editors Topics in the design of expert systems North Holland: Elsevier; 1989: 265-296.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Peleg M, Tu S. Decision support, knowledge representation and management in medicine. Yearb Med Inform 2006: 72-80.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Middleton B, Steen EB, Wright A, Detmer DE. A roadmap for national action on clinical decision support. JAMIA 2007; 14 (02) 141-145.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lyman JA, Cohn WF, Bloomrosen M, Detmer DE. Clinical decision support: progress and opportunities. JAMIA 2010; 17 (05) 487-492.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Greenes R, Bloomrosen M, Brown-Connolly NE, Curtis C, Detmer DE, Enberg R, et al.. The morningside initiative: collaborative development of a knowledge repository to accelerate adoption of clinical decision support. Open Med Inform J 2010; 4: 278-290.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ledley RS, Lusted LB. Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis. MD Comput 1991; 8 (05) 300-315.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Shortliffe EH. Computer-based medical consultations, MYCIN. New York: Elsevier; 1976.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Barnett GO. The computer and clinical judgement. N Engl J Med 1982; 307 (08) 493-494.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Schwartz WB, Patil RS, Szolovits P. Artificial intelligence in medicine. Where do we stand?. N Engl J Med 1987; 316 (11) 685-688.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ramnarayan P, Winrow A, Coren M, Nanduri V, Buchdahl R, Jacobs B. et al. Diagnostic omission errors in acute paediatric practice: impact of a reminder system on decision-making. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006; 6: 37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kimura M, Sakamoto M, Adachi T, Sagara H. Diagnosis of febrile illnesses in returned travelers using the PC software GIDEON. Travel Med Infect Dis 2005; 3 (03) 157-160.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Koller W, Blacky A, Bauer C, Mandl H, Adlassnig K-P. Electronic surveillance of healthcare-associated infections with MONI-ICU - a clinical breakthrough compared to conventional surveillance systems. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 160 (Pt 1) 432-436.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Coiera E. Guide to Health Informatics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E. et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144 (10) 742-752.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Haddawy P, Suebnukarn S. Intelligent clinical training systems. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49 (04) 388-389.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Berner ES, McGowan JJ. Use of diagnostic decision support systems in medical education. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49 (04) 412-417.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lucas PJ. Model-based diagnosis in medicine. Artif Intell Med 1997; 10 (03) 201-208.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Huettig M, Buscher G, Menzel T, Scheppach W, Puppe F, Buscher H-P. A diagnostic expert system for structured reports, quality assessment, and training of residents in sonography. Med Klin (Munich) 2004; 99 (03) 117-122.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Colreavy P. Lack of adequate medical involvement in patient centred information technoloy. In: Hasman A. editor Berlin: Medical Infobahn for Europe; IOS Press 2000.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 National electronic decision support taskforce. Electronic Decision Support for Australia’s Health Sector Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 2003.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 De Simone R, Coppola G, Ranieri A, Bussone G, Cortelli P, D’Amico D. ua. Validation of AIDA Cefalee, a computer-assisted diagnosis database for the management of headache patients. Neurol Sci 2007; 28 (Suppl. 02) S213-S216.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Garg AX, Adhikari NKJ, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J. et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 2005; 293 (10) 1223-1238.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ 2005; 330 7494 765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Weber S. Clinical decision support systems and how critical care clinicians use them. J Healthc Inf Manag 2007; 21 (02) 41-52.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pearson S-A, Moxey A, Robertson J, Hains I, Williamson M, Reeve J. u. a Do computerised clinical decision support systems for prescribing change practice? A systematic review of the literature (1990-2007). BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9: 154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Khajouei R, Jaspers MWM. The impact of CPOE medication systems’ design aspects on usability, workflow and medication orders: a systematic review. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49 (01) 3-19.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hulse NC, Del Fiol G, Rocha RA. Modeling end-users’ acceptance of a knowledge authoring tool. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (05) 528-535.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Toth-Pal E, Wårdh I, Strender L-E, Nilsson G. Implementing a clinical decision-support system in practice: a qualitative analysis of influencing attitudes and characteristics among general practitioners. Inform Health Soc Care 2008; 33 (01) 39-54.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Sittig DF, Wright A, Osheroff JA, Middleton B, Teich JM, Ash JS. et al. Grand challenges in clinical decision support. J Biomed Inform 2008; 41 (02) 387-392.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Khanna S. Artificial intelligence: contemporary applications and future compass. Int Dent J 2010; Aug 60 (04) 269-72. 1[31]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30a Horn W. AI in medicine on its way from knowledge-intensive to data-intensive systems. Artif Intell Med 2001; 23 (01) 5-12.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. JAMIA 2004; 11 (02) 104-112.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Berg M, Aarts J, van der Lei J. ICT in health care: sociotechnical approaches. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (04) 297-301.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Brender J, Ammenwerth E, Nykänen P, Talmon J. Factors influencing success and failure of health informatics systems--a pilot Delphi study. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (01) 125-136.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Paré G, Sicotte C, Jaana M, Girouard D. Prioritizing the risk factors influencing the success of clinical information system projects. Methods Inf Med 2008; 47 (03) 251-259.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Axelson C, Wårdh I, Strender L-E, Nilsson G. Using medical knowledge sources on handheld computers - a qualitative study among junior doctors. Med Teach 2007; 29 (06) 611-618.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lindquist AM, Johansson PE, Petersson GI, Saveman B-I, Nilsson GC. The use of the Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) among personnel and students in health care: a review. J Med Internet Res 2008; 10 (04) e31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Handler SM, Altman RL, Perera S, Hanlon JT, Studenski SA, Bost JE. u. a A systematic review of the performance characteristics of clinical event monitor signals used to detect adverse drug events in the hospital setting. JAMIA 2007; 14 (04) 451-458.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ozdas A, Speroff T, Waitman LR, Ozbolt J, Butler J, Miller RA. Integrating “best of care” protocols into clinicians’ workflow via care provider order entry: impact on quality-of-care indicators for acute myocardial infarction. JAMIA 2006; 13 (02) 188-196.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Fox J, Johns N, Rahmanzadeh A. Disseminating medical knowledge: the PROforma approach. Artif Intell Med 1998; 14 (1-2) 157-181.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 de Clercq PA, Blom JA, Korsten HHM, Hasman A. Approaches for creating computer-interpretable guidelines that facilitate decision support. Artif Intell Med 2004; 31 (01) 1-27.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Smith BJ, McNeely MD. The influence of an expert system for test ordering and interpretation on laboratory investigations. Clin. Chem 1999; 45 (8 Pt 1) 1168-1175.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Demiris G. Smart homes and ambient assisted living in an aging society. New opportunities and challenges for biomedical informatics. Methods Inf Med 2008; 47 (01) 56-57.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar