System for Context-Specific Visualization of Clinical Practice Guidelines (GuLiNav): Concept and Software Implementation

Overview

Journal JMIR Form Res

Publisher JMIR Publications

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2022 Jun 22

PMID 35731571

Authors

Jonas Fortmann

Marlene Lutz

Cord Spreckelsen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Clinical decision support systems often adopt and operationalize existing clinical practice guidelines leading to higher guideline availability, increased guideline adherence, and data integration. Most of these systems use an internal state-based model of a clinical practice guideline to derive recommendations but do not provide the user with comprehensive insight into the model.

Objective: Here we present a novel approach based on dynamic guideline visualization that incorporates the individual patient's current treatment context.

Methods: We derived multiple requirements to be fulfilled by such an enhanced guideline visualization. Using business process and model notation as the representation format for computer-interpretable guidelines, a combination of graph-based representation and logical inferences is adopted for guideline processing. A context-specific guideline visualization is inferred using a business rules engine.

Results: We implemented and piloted an algorithmic approach for guideline interpretation and processing. As a result of this interpretation, a context-specific guideline is derived and visualized. Our implementation can be used as a software library but also provides a representational state transfer interface. Spring, Camunda, and Drools served as the main frameworks for implementation. A formative usability evaluation of a demonstrator tool that uses the visualization yielded high acceptance among clinicians.

Conclusions: The novel guideline processing and visualization concept proved to be technically feasible. The approach addresses known problems of guideline-based clinical decision support systems. Further research is necessary to evaluate the applicability of the approach in specific medical use cases.

Citing Articles

Expanding access to veterinary clinical decision support in resource-limited settings: a scoping review of clinical decision support tools in medicine and antimicrobial stewardship.

Yusuf H, Hillman A, Stegeman J, Cameron A, Badger S Front Vet Sci. 2024; 11:1349188.

PMID: 38895711 PMC: 11184142. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1349188.

Use of Real-World FHIR Data Combined with Context-Sensitive Decision Modeling to Guide Sentinel Biopsy in Melanoma.

Beckmann C, Lodde G, Swoboda J, Livingstone E, Bockmann B J Clin Med. 2024; 13(11).

PMID: 38893064 PMC: 11172530. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113353.

A Nationwide Chronic Disease Management Solution via Clinical Decision Support Services: Software Development and Real-Life Implementation Report.

Ulgu M, Laleci Erturkmen G, Yuksel M, Namli T, Postaci S, Gencturk M JMIR Med Inform. 2024; 12:e49986.

PMID: 38241077 PMC: 10837759. DOI: 10.2196/49986.

Examining Care Planning Efficiency and Clinical Decision Support Adoption in a System Tailoring to Nurses' Graph Literacy: National, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.

Yao Y, Lopez K, Bjarnadottir R, Macieira T, Dos Santos F, Madandola O J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e45043.

PMID: 37566456 PMC: 10457701. DOI: 10.2196/45043.

References

Skonetzki S, Gausepohl H, van der Haak M, Knaebel S, Linderkamp O, Wetter T . HELEN, a modular framework for representing and implementing clinical practice guidelines. Methods Inf Med. 2004; 43(4):413-26. View

Sittig D, Krall M, Dykstra R, Russell A, Chin H . A survey of factors affecting clinician acceptance of clinical decision support. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006; 6:6. PMC: 1403751. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-6-6. View

Roshanov P, Fernandes N, Wilczynski J, Hemens B, You J, Handler S . Features of effective computerised clinical decision support systems: meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. BMJ. 2013; 346:f657. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f657. View

Wright A, Sittig D, Ash J, Erickson J, Hickman T, Paterno M . Lessons learned from implementing service-oriented clinical decision support at four sites: A qualitative study. Int J Med Inform. 2015; 84(11):901-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.08.008. View

Hagel S, Gantner J, Spreckelsen C, Fischer C, Ammon D, Saleh K . Hospital-wide ELectronic medical record evaluated computerised decision support system to improve outcomes of Patients with staphylococcal bloodstream infection (HELP): study protocol for a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2020; 10(2):e033391. PMC: 7044885. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033391. View

Kaiser K, Marcos M . Leveraging workflow control patterns in the domain of clinical practice guidelines. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016; 16:20. PMC: 4748513. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-016-0253-z. View

Peleg M . Computer-interpretable clinical guidelines: a methodological review. J Biomed Inform. 2013; 46(4):744-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.06.009. View

Shahar Y, Young O, Shalom E, Galperin M, Mayaffit A, Moskovitch R . A framework for a distributed, hybrid, multiple-ontology clinical-guideline library, and automated guideline-support tools. J Biomed Inform. 2004; 37(5):325-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2004.07.001. View

de Bruin J, Adlassnig K, Leitich H, Rappelsberger A . Separating Business Logic from Medical Knowledge in Digital Clinical Workflows Using Business Process Model and Notation and Arden Syntax. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018; 248:17-24. View

10.

Bates D, Kuperman G, Wang S, Gandhi T, Kittler A, Volk L . Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003; 10(6):523-30. PMC: 264429. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M1370. View

11.

Wright A, Sittig D . A four-phase model of the evolution of clinical decision support architectures. Int J Med Inform. 2008; 77(10):641-9. PMC: 2627782. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.01.004. View

12.

Shahar Y, Goren-Bar D, Boaz D, Tahan G . Distributed, intelligent, interactive visualization and exploration of time-oriented clinical data and their abstractions. Artif Intell Med. 2005; 38(2):115-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2005.03.001. View

13.

Klimov D, Shahar Y, Taieb-Maimon M . Intelligent visualization and exploration of time-oriented data of multiple patients. Artif Intell Med. 2010; 49(1):11-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2010.02.001. View

14.

Mulyar N, van der Aalst W, Peleg M . A pattern-based analysis of clinical computer-interpretable guideline modeling languages. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007; 14(6):781-7. PMC: 2213484. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M2389. View

15.

Tu S, Campbell J, Glasgow J, Nyman M, McClure R, McClay J . The SAGE Guideline Model: achievements and overview. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007; 14(5):589-98. PMC: 1975799. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M2399. View

16.

Murphy E . Clinical decision support: effectiveness in improving quality processes and clinical outcomes and factors that may influence success. Yale J Biol Med. 2014; 87(2):187-97. PMC: 4031792. View

17.

Gietzelt M, Goltz U, Grunwald D, Lochau M, Marschollek M, Song B . ARDEN2BYTECODE: a one-pass Arden Syntax compiler for service-oriented decision support systems based on the OSGi platform. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2011; 106(2):114-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2011.11.003. View

18.

Greenes R, Bates D, Kawamoto K, Middleton B, Osheroff J, Shahar Y . Clinical decision support models and frameworks: Seeking to address research issues underlying implementation successes and failures. J Biomed Inform. 2017; 78:134-143. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2017.12.005. View

19.

Hripcsak G, Wigertz O, Clayton P . Origins of the Arden Syntax. Artif Intell Med. 2015; 92:7-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2015.05.006. View

20.

Martins S, Shahar Y, Goren-Bar D, Galperin M, Kaizer H, Basso L . Evaluation of an architecture for intelligent query and exploration of time-oriented clinical data. Artif Intell Med. 2008; 43(1):17-34. PMC: 2853917. DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2008.03.006. View