Search

Display Omitted A new guideline-based support architecture for continuous care, PICARD, is presented.A technical evaluation performed for 19 scenarios, using a guideline-based simulator.Functional and clinically oriented evaluations performed (6 scenarios, 36 clinicians).The PICARD architecture was found to be technically feasible and functionally valid.The use of PICARD enhanced clinician's compliance and reduced redundancies. ObjectivesDesign, implement, and evaluate a new architecture for realistic continuous guideline (GL)-based decision support, based on a series of requirements that we have identified, such as support for continuous care, for multiple task types, and for data-driven and user-driven modes. MethodsWe designed and implemented a new continuous GL-based support architecture, PICARD, which accesses a temporal reasoning engine, and provides several different types of application interfaces. We present the new architecture in detail in the current paper. To evaluate the architecture, we first performed a technical evaluation of the PICARD architecture, using 19 simulated scenarios in the preeclampsia/toxemia domain. We then performed a functional evaluation with the help of two domain experts, by generating patient records that simulate 60 decision points from six clinical guideline-based scenarios, lasting from two days to four weeks. Finally, 36 clinicians made manual decisions in half of the scenarios, and had access to the automated GL-based support in the other half. The measures used in all three experiments were correctness and completeness of the decisions relative to the GL. ResultsMean correctness and completeness in the technical evaluation were 1?0.0 and 0.96?0.03 respectively. The functional evaluation produced only several minor comments from the two experts, mostly regarding the output's style; otherwise the system's recommendations were validated. In the clinically oriented evaluation, the 36 clinicians applied manually approximately 41% of the GL's recommended actions. Completeness increased to approximately 93% when using PICARD. Manual correctness was approximately 94.5%, and remained similar when using PICARD; but while 68% of the manual decisions included correct but redundant actions, only 3% of the actions included in decisions made when using PICARD were redundant. ConclusionsThe PICARD architecture is technically feasible and is functionally valid, and addresses the realistic continuous GL-based application requirements that we have defined; in particular, the requirement for care over significant time frames. The use of the PICARD architecture in the domain we examined resulted in enhanced completeness and in reduction of redundancies, and is potentially beneficial for general GL-based management of chronic patients.

We have developed the GLIF3 Guideline Execution Engine (GLEE) as a tool for executing guidelines encoded in the GLIF3 format. In addition to serving as an interface to the GLIF3 guideline representation model to support the specified functions, GLEE provides defined interfaces to electronic medical records (EMRs) and other clinical applications to facilitate its integration with the clinical information system at a local institution. The execution model of GLEE takes the “system suggests, user controls” approach. A tracing system is used to record an individual patient's state when a guideline is applied to that patient. GLEE can also support an event-driven execution model once it is linked to the clinical event monitor in a local environment. Evaluation has shown that GLEE can be used effectively for proper execution of guidelines encoded in the GLIF3 format. When using it to execute each guideline in the evaluation, GLEE's performance duplicated that of the reference systems implementing the same guideline but taking different approaches. The execution flexibility and generality provided by GLEE, and its integration with a local environment, need to be further evaluated in clinical settings. Integration of GLEE with a specific event-monitoring and order-entry environment is the next step of our work to demonstrate its use for clinical decision support. Potential uses of GLEE also include quality assurance, guideline development, and medical education.