Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this research was to design a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that supports heterogeneous clinical decision problems and runs on multiple computing platforms. Meeting this objective required a novel design to create an extendable and easy to maintain clinical CDSS for point of care support. The proposed solution was evaluated in a proof of concept implementation.Methods: Based on our earlier research with the design of a mobile CDSS for emergency triage we used ontology-driven design to represent essential components of a CDSS. Models of clinical decision problems were derived from the ontology and they were processed into executable applications during runtime. This allowed scaling applications' functionality to the capabilities of computing platforms. A prototype of the system was implemented using the extended client-server architecture and Web services to distribute the functions of the system and to make it operational in limited connectivity conditions.Results: The proposed design provided a common framework that facilitated development of diversified clinical applications running seamlessly on a variety of computing platforms. It was prototyped for two clinical decision problems and settings (triage of acute pain in the emergency department and postoperative management of radical prostatectomy on the hospital ward) and implemented on two computing platforms--desktop and handheld computers.Conclusions: The requirement of the CDSS heterogeneity was satisfied with ontology-driven design. Processing of application models described with the help of ontological models allowed having a complex system running on multiple computing platforms with different capabilities. Finally, separation of models and runtime components contributed to improved extensibility and maintainability of the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Online medical knowledge repositories such as MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library are increasingly used by physicians to retrieve articles to aid with clinical decision making. The prevailing approach for organizing retrieved articles is in the form of a rank-ordered list, with the assumption that the higher an article is presented on a list, the more relevant it is. Objectives: Despite this common list-based organization, it is seldom studied how physicians perceive the association between the relevance of articles and the order in which articles are presented. In this paper we describe a case study that captured physician preferences for 3-element lists of medical articles in order to learn how to organize medical knowledge for decision-making. Methods: Comprehensive relevance evaluations were developed to represent 3-element lists of hypothetical articles that may be retrieved from an online medical knowledge source such as MEDLINE or The Cochrane Library. Comprehensive relevance evaluations asses not only an article's relevance for a query, but also whether it has been placed on the correct list position. In other words an article may be relevant and correctly placed on a result list (e.g. the most relevant article appears first in the result list), an article may be relevant for a query but placed on an incorrect list position (e.g. the most relevant article appears second in a result list), or an article may be irrelevant for a query yet still appear in the result list. The relevance evaluations were presented to six senior physicians who were asked to express their preferences for an artide's relevance and its position on a list by pairwise comparisons representing different combinations of 3-element lists. The elicited preferences were assessed using a novel GRIP (Generalized Regression with Intensities of Preference) method and represented as an additive value function. Value functions were derived for individual physicians as well as the group of physicians. Results: The results show that physicians assign significant value to the 1st position on a list and they expect that the most relevant article is presented first. Whilst physicians still prefer obtaining a correctly placed article on position 2, they are also quite satisfied with misplaced relevant article. Low consideration of the 3rd position was uniformly confirmed. Conclusions: Our findings confirm the importance of placing the most relevant article on the 1st position on a list and the importance paid to position on a list significantly diminishes after the 2nd position. The derived value functions may be used by developers of clinical decision support applications to decide how best to organize medical knowledge for decision making and to create personalized evaluation measures that can augment typical measures used to evaluate information retrieval systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Online medical knowledge repositories such as MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library are increasingly used by physicians to retrieve articles to aid with clinical decision making. The prevailing approach for organizing retrieved articles is in the form of a rank-ordered list, with the assumption that the higher an article is presented on a list, the more relevant it is.Objectives: Despite this common list-based organization, it is seldom studied how physicians perceive the association between the relevance of articles and the order in which articles are presented. In this paper we describe a case study that captured physician preferences for 3-element lists of medical articles in order to learn how to organize medical knowledge for decision-making.Methods: Comprehensive relevance evaluations were developed to represent 3-element lists of hypothetical articles that may be retrieved from an online medical knowledge source such as MEDLINE or The Cochrane Library. Comprehensive relevance evaluations asses not only an article's relevance for a query, but also whether it has been placed on the correct list position. In other words an article may be relevant and correctly placed on a result list (e.g. the most relevant article appears first in the result list), an article may be relevant for a query but placed on an incorrect list position (e.g. the most relevant article appears second in a result list), or an article may be irrelevant for a query yet still appear in the result list. The relevance evaluations were presented to six senior physicians who were asked to express their preferences for an article's relevance and its position on a list by pairwise comparisons representing different combinations of 3-element lists. The elicited preferences were assessed using a novel GRIP (Generalized Regression with Intensities of Preference) method and represented as an additive value function. Value functions were derived for individual physicians as well as the group of physicians.Results: The results show that physicians assign significant value to the 1st position on a list and they expect that the most relevant article is presented first. Whilst physicians still prefer obtaining a correctly placed article on position 2, they are also quite satisfied with misplaced relevant article. Low consideration of the 3rd position was uniformly confirmed.Conclusions: Our findings confirm the importance of placing the most relevant article on the 1st position on a list and the importance paid to position on a list significantly diminishes after the 2nd position. The derived value functions may be used by developers of clinical decision support applications to decide how best to organize medical knowledge for decision making and to create personalized evaluation measures that can augment typical measures used to evaluate information retrieval systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Our objective was to design and develop a mobile clinical decision support system for emergency triage of different acute pain presentations. The system should interact with existing hospital information systems, run on mobile computing devices (handheld computers) and be suitable for operation in weak-connectivity conditions (with unstable connections between mobile clients and a server).Methods: The MET (Mobile Emergency Triage) system was designed following an extended client-server architecture. The client component, responsible for triage decision support, is built as a knowledge-based system, with domain ontology separated from generic problem solving methods and used for the automatic creation of a user interface.Results: The MET system is well suited for operation in the Emergency Department of a hospital. The system's external interactions are managed by the server, while the MET clients, running on handheld computers are used by clinicians for collecting clinical data and supporting triage at the bedside. The functionality of the MET client is distributed into specialized modules, responsible for triaging specific types of acute pain presentations. The modules are stored on the server, and on request they can be transferred and executed on the mobile clients. The modular design provides for easy extension of the system's functionality. A clinical trial of the MET system validated the appropriateness of the system's design, and proved the usefulness and acceptance of the system in clinical practice.Conclusions: The MET system captures the necessary hospital data, allows for entry of patient information, and provides triage support. By operating on handheld computers, it fits into the regular emergency department workflow without introducing any hindrances or disruptions. It supports triage anytime and anywhere, directly at the point of care, and also can be used as an electronic patient chart, facilitating structured data collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A significant challenge associated with practicing evidence-based medicine is to provide physicians with relevant clinical information when it is needed. At the same time it appears that the notion of relevance is subjective and its perception is affected by a number of contextual factors., Objectives: To assess to what extent physicians agree on the relevance of evidence in the form of systematic reviews for a common set of patient cases, and to identify possible contextual factors that influence their perception of relevance., Methods: A web-based survey was used where pediatric emergency physicians from multiple academic centers across Canada were asked to evaluate the relevance of systematic reviews retrieved automatically for 14 written case vignettes (paper patients). The vignettes were derived from prospective data describing pediatric patients with asthma exacerbations presenting at the emergency department. To limit the cognitive burden on respondents, the number of reviews associated with each vignette was limited to three., Results: Twenty-two academic emergency physicians with varying years of clinical practice completed the survey. There was no consensus in their evaluation of relevance of the retrieved reviews and physicians' assessments ranged from very relevant to irrelevant evidence, with the majority of evaluations being somewhere in the middle. This indicates that the study participants did not share a notion of relevance uniformly. Further analysis of commentaries provided by the physicians allowed identifying three possible contextual factors: expected specificity of evidence (acute vs chronic condition), the terminology used in the systematic reviews, and the micro environment of clinical setting., Conclusions: There is no consensus among physicians with regards to what constitutes relevant clinical evidence for a given patient case. Subsequently, this finding suggests that evidence retrieval systems should allow for deep customization with regards to physician's preferences and contextual factors, including differences in the micro environment of each clinical setting.