A Task-based Support Architecture for Developing Point-of-care Clinical Decision Support Systems for the Emergency Department

Summary

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to create a task-based support architecture for developing clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that assist physicians in making decisions at the point-of-care in the emergency department (ED). The backbone of the proposed architecture was established by a task-based emergency workflow model for a patient-physician encounter.

Methods: The architecture was designed according to an agent-oriented paradigm. Specifically, we used the O-MaSE (Organization-based Multi-agent System Engineering) method that allows for iterative translation of functional requirements into architectural components (e.g., agents). The agent-oriented paradigm was extended with ontology-driven design to implement ontological models representing knowledge required by specific agents to operate.

Results: The task-based architecture allows for the creation of a CDSS that is aligned with the task-based emergency workflow model. It facilitates decoupling of executable components (agents) from embedded domain knowledge (ontological models), thus supporting their interoperability, sharing, and reuse. The generic architecture was implemented as a pilot system, MET3-AE – a CDSS to help with the management of pediatric asthma exacerbation in the ED. The system was evaluated in a hospital ED.

Conclusions: The architecture allows for the creation of a CDSS that integrates support for all tasks from the task-based emergency workflow model, and interacts with hospital information systems. Proposed architecture also allows for reusing and sharing system components and knowledge across disease-specific CDSSs.

Keywords

Clinical decision support system - point-of-care - system architecture - agent-oriented paradigm - ontology-driven design

• References

• 1 Wyatt J, Spiegelhalter D. Field trials of medical decision-aids: potential problems and solutions. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1991: 3-7.
• 2 Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 1998; 280 (15) 1339-1346.
• 3 Berner ES. Clinical decision support systems – state of the art. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2009.
• 4 Garg AX, Adhikari NK, 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.
• 5 Eichner J, Das M. Challenges and barriers to clinical decision support (CDS) design and implementation experienced in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality CDS demonstrations. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2010.
• 6 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 765-772.
• 7 Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S, Gandhi T, Kittler A, Volk L. et al Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10 (06) 523-530.
• 8 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.
• 9 Fieschi M, Dufour JC, Staccini P, Gouvernet J, Bouhaddou O. Medical decision support systems: old dilemmas and new paradigms?. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (03) 190-198.
• 10 Isern D, Sanchez D, Moreno A. Agents applied in health care: A review. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79: 145-166.
• 11 Ciancarini P, Wooldridge M. Agent-oriented software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering ICSE’00. New York: ACM; 2000: 816-817.
• 12 Wooldridge M, Ciancarini P. Agent-oriented software engineering: the state of the art. In Ciancarini P, Wooldridge M. editors Agent-Oriented Software Engineering. First International Workshop, AOSE 2000 Limerick, Ireland, June 10, 2000. Revised Papers. Berlin: Springer; 2001: 1-28.
• 13 Jennings N. On agent-based software engineering. Artif Intell 2000; 117 (02) 277-296.
• 14 Farion K, Michalowski W, Wilk S, O’Sullivan D, Rubin S, Weiss D. Clinical decision support system for point of care use: ontology driven design and software implementation. Methods Inf Med 2009; 48 (04) 381-390.
• 15 Michalowski W, Rubin S, Slowinski R, Wilk S. Mobile clinical support system for pediatric emergencies. Decis Support Syst 2003; 36 (02) 161-176.
• 16 Wright A, Sittig DF. A four-phase model of the evolution of clinical decision support architectures. Int J Med Inform 2008; 77 (10) 641-649.
• 17 Pokahr A, Braubach L, Jander K. Unifying agent and component concepts. In Dix J, Witteveen C. editors Multiagent System Technologies. The 8th German Conference, MATES 2010. Leipzig, Germany, September 27–29, 2010. Proceedings. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2010: 100-112.
• 18 Gómez-Sanz J, Pavón J. Methodologies for developing multi-agent systems. J Univers Comput Sci 2004; 10 (04) 359-374.
• 19 Hollinsworth D. The workflow reference model: Workflow Management Coallition. 1994.
• 20 Huser V, Rasmussen LV, Oberg R, Starren JB. Implementation of workflow engine technology to deliver basic clinical decision support functionality. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11: 43-61.
• 21 Lee J, Kim J, Cho I, Kim Y. Integration of workflow and rule engines for clinical decision support services. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 160 Pt 2 811-5.
• 22 Zhao JL. Intelligent agents for flexible workflow systems. In Proceedings of the AIS Americas Conference on Information Systems. Baltimore: MD; 1997: 238-239.
• 23 Isern D, Sánchez D, Moreno A. HeCaSe2: a multi-agent ontology-driven guideline enactment engine. In Burkhard H-D, Lindemann G, Verbrugge R, Varga L. editors Multi-agent systems and applications V. 5th International Central and Eastern European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, CEEMAS 2007, Leipzig, Germany, September 25–27, 2007. Proceedings; Springer: 2007: 322-324.
• 24 Isern D, Moreno A, Sánchez D, Hajnal Á, Pedone G, Varga LZ. Agent-based execution of personalised home care treatments. Appl Intell 2009; 34 (02) 155-180.
• 25 Braun L, Wiesman F, van der Herik J, Hasman A. Agent support in medical information retrieval. In Cortes U, Fox J, Moreno A, Nealon J. editors Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Agents Applied in Health Care, IJCAI 2005, AAAI. Edinburgh. 2005: 16-25.
• 26 Horsky J, Gutnik L, Patel VL. Technology for emergency care: cognitive and workflow considerations. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006: 344-348.
• 27 Perina DG, Beeson MS, Char DM, Counselman FL, Keim SM, McGee DL. et al The 2007 model of the clinical practice of emergency medicine: the 2009 update 2009 EM Model Review Task Force. Ann Emerg Med 2011; 57 (03) e1-15.
• 28 Lenz R, Reichert M. IT support for healthcare processes – premises, challenges, perspectives. Data Knowl Eng 2007; 61 (01) 39-58.
• 29 Landman AB, Bernstein SL, Hsiao AL, Desai RA. Emergency department information system adoption in the United States. Acad Emerg Med 2010; 17 (05) 536-544.
• 30 Prietula MJ, Simon HA. The experts in your midst. Harvard Bus Rev 1989; 67 (01) 120-124.
• 31 Bagga W, Molva R. Policy-based cryptography and applications. In Goos G, Hartmanis J, van Leeuwen J. editors Financial Cryptography and Data Security. 9th International Conference, FC 2005, Roseau, The Commonwealth of Dominica, February/March, 2005. Revised papers. Berlin: Springer; 2005: 72-87.
• 32 Körner H, Söndenaa K, Söreide JA, Andersen E, Nysted A, Lende TH. Structured data collection improves the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 1998; 85 (03) 341-344.
• 33 Kong GL, Xu DL, Yang JB. Clinical decision support systems: a review on knowledge representation and inference under uncertainties. Int J Comput Intell Syst 2008; 1 (02) 159-167.
• 34 Bakken S, Currie LM, Lee N-J. Roberts WD, Collins SA, Cimino JJ. Integrating evidence into clinical information systems for nursing decision support. Int J Med Inform 2008; 77 (06) 413-420.
• 35 Shortliffe EH. The adolescence of AI in medicine: will the field come of age in the 90’s?. Artif Intell Med 1993; 5 (02) 93-106.
• 36 Burkle T, Schweiger R, Altmann U, Holena M, Blobel B, Dudeck J. Transferring data from one EPR to another: content-syntax-semantic. Methods Inf Med 1999; 38 4–5 321-325.
• 37 Mori AR, Consorti F. Integration of clinical information across patient records: a comparison of mechanisms used to enforce semantic coherence. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 1998; 2 (04) 243-253.
• 38 Berlin A, Sorani M, Sim I. A taxonomic description of computer-based clinical decision support systems. J Biomed Inform 2006; 39 (06) 656-667.
• 39 Ammenwerth E, Buchauer A, Bludau B, Haux R. Mobile information and communication tools in the hospital. Int J Med Inform 2000; 57 (01) 21-40.
• 40 Folz-Murphy N, Partin M, Williams L, Harris CM, Lauer MS. Physician use of an ambulatory medical record system: matching form and function. Proc AMIA Symp. 1998: 260-264.
• 41 DeLoach SA. Engineering organization-based multiagent systems. In Garcia A, Choren R, Lucena C, Giorgini P, Holvoet T, Romanovsky A. editors System Engineering for Multi-agent Systems IV: Research Issues and Practical Applications. Berlin: Springer; 2006: 109-125.
• 42 Crubézy M, O’Connor M, Buckeridge DL, Pincus Z, Musen MA. Ontology-centered syndromic surveillance for bioterrorism. IEEE Intell Syst 2005; 20 (05) 26-35.
• 43 Musen MA. Scalable software architectures for decision support. Methods Inf Med 1999; 38 4–5 229-238.
• 44 Swartout W, Tate A. Ontologies. IEEE Intel Syst App 1999; 14 (01) 18-19.
• 45 O’Sullivan D, Wilk S, Michalowski W, Farion K. Automatic indexing and retrieval of encounter-specific evidence for point-of-care support. J Biomed Inform 2010; 43 (04) 623-631.
• 46 Michalowski W, Wilk S, Farion K, Pike J, Rubin S, Slowinski R. Development of a decision algorithm to support emergency triage of scrotal pain and its implementation in the MET system. INFOR 2005; 43 (04) 287-301.
• 47 Błaszczyński J, Farion K, Michalowski W, Wilk S, Rubin S, Weiss D. Mining clinical data: selecting decision support algorithm for the MET-AP system. In Miksch S, Hunter J, Keravnou ET. editors Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 10th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, AIME 2005, Aberdeen, UK, July 23–27, 2005. Proceedings. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer; 2005: 429-433.
• 48 Nadkarni PM, Marenco L, Chen R, Skoufos E, Shepherd G, Miller P. Organization of heterogeneous scientific data using the EAV/CR representation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 6 (06) 478-493.
• 49 Wilk S, Michalowski W, Farion K, Kersten M. Interaction design for mobile clinical decision support systems: the MET system solutions. Found Comput Decis Sci 2007; 32 (01) 47-61.
• 50 Tu SW, Campbell JR, Glasgow J, Nyman MA, McClure R, McClay J. et al The SAGE Guideline Model: achievements and overview. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (05) 589-598.
• 51 Sayyad Shirabad J, Wilk S, Michalowski W, Farion K. Implementing an Integrative Multi-agent Clinical Decision Support System with Open Source Software. J Med Syst 2012; 36 (01) 123-137.
• 52 Wilk S, Michalowski W, Farion K, Sayyad Shirabad J. MET3-AE system to support management of pediatric asthma exacerbation in the emergency department. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 160 Pt 2 841-845.
• 53 Bellifemine FL, Caire G, Greenwood D. Developing multi-agent systems with JADE. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2007.
• 54 Gennari JH, Musen MA, Fergerson RW, Grosso WE, Crubézy M, Eriksson H. et al The evolution of Protégé: an environment for knowledge-based systems development. Int J Hum Comput Stud 2003; 58 (01) 89-123.
• 55 Khondoker MR, Mueller P. Comparing ontology development tools based on an online survey. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering (WCE). London: 2010: 188-192.
• 56 The Cochrane Collaboration (Internet). The Cochrane Library (cited August 3, 2011). Available from. http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/.
• 57 Alberta Clinical Practice Guidelines Program. Guidelines for the management of acute asthma in adults and children: Alberta Medical Association; 2002.
• 58 Ducharme FM, Chalut D, Plotnick L, Savdie C, Kudirka D, Zhang X. et al The Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure: a valid clinical score for assessing acute asthma severity from toddlers to teenagers. J Pediatr 2008; 152 (04) 476-480. 80 e1
• 59 Lavrac N. Selected techniques for data mining in medicine. Artif Intell Med 1999; 16 (01) 3-23.
• 60 Mirth Corporation [Internet]. Mirth Connect (cited Aug 8, 2011). Available from. http://www.mirthcorp.com/community/mirth-connect.
• 61 Henry K, Campbell S, Maki M. A comparison of observed and self-reported compliance with universal precautions among emergency department personnel at a Minnesota public teaching hospital: implications for assessing infection control programs. Ann Emerg Med 1992; 21 (08) 940-946.
• 62 O’Sullivan D, Doyle J, Michalowski W, Wilk S, Farion K, Kuziemsky C. Assessing the motivation of MDs to use computer-based support at the point-of-care in the Emergency Department. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011: 1045-1054.
• 63 Kawamoto K, Lobach DF. Design, implementation, use and preliminary evaluation of SEBASTIAN, a standards-based Web service for clinical decision support. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005: 380-384.
• 64 Wright A, Sittig DF. SANDS: a service-oriented architecture for clinical decision support in a National Health Information Network. J Biomed Inform 2008; 41 (06) 962-981.
• 65 Wright A, Sittig DF. A framework and model for evaluating clinical decision support architectures. J Biomed Inform 2008; 41 (06) 982-990.
• 66 Lopez DM, Blobel B. Enhanced semantic interoperability by profiling health informatics standards. Methods Inf Med 2009; 48 (02) 170-177.
• 67 Hine MJ, Farion K, Michalowski W, Wilk S. Decision making by emergency room physicians and residents: implications for the design of clinical decision support systems. Int J Healthc Inf Syst Inform. 2009; 4 (02) 17-35.