Sarah Collins1, Stephanie Klinkenberg-Ramirez2, Kira Tsivkin2, Perry L Mar3, Dina Iskhakova2, Hari Nandigam2, Lipika Samal4, Roberto A Rocha3. 1. Partners HealthCare System, Boston, MA, United States; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States. Electronic address: sacollins@bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Partners HealthCare System, Boston, MA, United States. 3. Partners HealthCare System, Boston, MA, United States; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States. 4. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Develop a prototype of an interprofessional terminology and information model infrastructure that can enable care planning applications to facilitate patient-centered care, learn care plan linkages and associations, provide decision support, and enable automated, prospective analytics. DESIGN: The study steps included a 3 step approach: (1) Process model and clinical scenario development, and (2) Requirements analysis, and (3) Development and validation of information and terminology models. RESULTS: Components of the terminology model include: Health Concerns, Goals, Decisions, Interventions, Assessments, and Evaluations. A terminology infrastructure should: (A) Include discrete care plan concepts; (B) Include sets of profession-specific concerns, decisions, and interventions; (C) Communicate rationales, anticipatory guidance, and guidelines that inform decisions among the care team; (D) Define semantic linkages across clinical events and professions; (E) Define sets of shared patient goals and sub-goals, including patient stated goals; (F) Capture evaluation toward achievement of goals. These requirements were mapped to AHRQ Care Coordination Measures Framework. LIMITATIONS: This study used a constrained set of clinician-validated clinical scenarios. Terminology models for goals and decisions are unavailable in SNOMED CT, limiting the ability to evaluate these aspects of the proposed infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS: Defining and linking subsets of care planning concepts appears to be feasible, but also essential to model interprofessional care planning for common co-occurring conditions and chronic diseases. We recommend the creation of goal dynamics and decision concepts in SNOMED CT to further enable the necessary models. Systems with flexible terminology management infrastructure may enable intelligent decision support to identify conflicting and aligned concerns, goals, decisions, and interventions in shared care plans, ultimately decreasing documentation effort and cognitive burden for clinicians and patients.
OBJECTIVE: Develop a prototype of an interprofessional terminology and information model infrastructure that can enable care planning applications to facilitate patient-centered care, learn care plan linkages and associations, provide decision support, and enable automated, prospective analytics. DESIGN: The study steps included a 3 step approach: (1) Process model and clinical scenario development, and (2) Requirements analysis, and (3) Development and validation of information and terminology models. RESULTS: Components of the terminology model include: Health Concerns, Goals, Decisions, Interventions, Assessments, and Evaluations. A terminology infrastructure should: (A) Include discrete care plan concepts; (B) Include sets of profession-specific concerns, decisions, and interventions; (C) Communicate rationales, anticipatory guidance, and guidelines that inform decisions among the care team; (D) Define semantic linkages across clinical events and professions; (E) Define sets of shared patient goals and sub-goals, including patient stated goals; (F) Capture evaluation toward achievement of goals. These requirements were mapped to AHRQ Care Coordination Measures Framework. LIMITATIONS: This study used a constrained set of clinician-validated clinical scenarios. Terminology models for goals and decisions are unavailable in SNOMED CT, limiting the ability to evaluate these aspects of the proposed infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS: Defining and linking subsets of care planning concepts appears to be feasible, but also essential to model interprofessional care planning for common co-occurring conditions and chronic diseases. We recommend the creation of goal dynamics and decision concepts in SNOMED CT to further enable the necessary models. Systems with flexible terminology management infrastructure may enable intelligent decision support to identify conflicting and aligned concerns, goals, decisions, and interventions in shared care plans, ultimately decreasing documentation effort and cognitive burden for clinicians and patients.
Authors: Holly Van Heukelom; Valli Fraser; Jiak-Chin Koh; Kay McQueen; Kara Vogt; Frances Johnson Journal: Can J Diet Pract Res Date: 2011 Impact factor: 0.940
Authors: Sarah A Collins; Suzanne Bakken; David K Vawdrey; Enrico Coiera; Leanne M Currie Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010-11-27 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Aziz A Boxwala; Mor Peleg; Samson Tu; Omolola Ogunyemi; Qing T Zeng; Dongwen Wang; Vimla L Patel; Robert A Greenes; Edward H Shortliffe Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Sacha A H B van Langeveld; Marcel W M Post; Floris W A van Asbeck; Karin Postma; Dominique Ten Dam; Kees Pons Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.649