| Literature DB >> 29695248 |
Younjin Chung1,2, Luis Salvador-Carulla3,4, José A Salinas-Pérez5, Jose J Uriarte-Uriarte6, Alvaro Iruin-Sanz7, Carlos R García-Alonso8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decision-making in mental health systems should be supported by the evidence-informed knowledge transfer of data. Since mental health systems are inherently complex, involving interactions between its structures, processes and outcomes, decision support systems (DSS) need to be developed using advanced computational methods and visual tools to allow full system analysis, whilst incorporating domain experts in the analysis process. In this study, we use a DSS model developed for interactive data mining and domain expert collaboration in the analysis of complex mental health systems to improve system knowledge and evidence-informed policy planning.Entities:
Keywords: Decision support systems; Evidence-informed policy planning; Expert knowledge; Expert-based collaborative analysis; Health systems engineering; Interactive visual data mining; Key performance indicator; Mental health system; Self-organising map network
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29695248 PMCID: PMC5922302 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-018-0308-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Res Policy Syst ISSN: 1478-4505
Fig. 1Three different phases of data processing (pre-, mid- and post-processing) for decision support systems are compared between knowledge discovery in databases (KDD) and ‘Expert-based Collaborative Analysis’ (EbCA). a The process of KDD [13]. b The operational process in EbCA [11]
The minimum metadata set (MMS) for the data analysis in this study. The selected 64 key performance indicators (KPIs) of mental healthcare are divided into three input datasets (Service Availability (AVA, labelled as ‘A’), Placement Capacity (PLA, labelled as ‘P’) and Workforce Capacity (WOF, labelled as ‘W’)) and one output dataset (Resource Utilisation (USE, labelled as ‘U’)). The KPIs in each dataset are organised based on the main type of care and the DESDE-LTC classification system [34]
| Indicators (64) | Input (12) | Input (13) | Input (33) | Output (6) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main type of care | AVA | PLA | WOF | USE |
| Hospital and residential care | ||||
| Acute hospital care, e.g. acute ward | A1 | P1 | W1 (psychiatrists) | U1 (discharge)a |
| W2 (psychologists, nurses) | U2 (length of stay)b | |||
| W3 (total professionals)d | U3 (re-admission)c | |||
| Non-acute hospital care, e.g. sub-acute ward | A2 | P2 | W4 (psychiatrists) | – |
| W5 (psychologists, nurses) | ||||
| W6 (total professionals) | ||||
| Non-acute non-hospital care, e.g. non-acute crisis home | A3 | P3 | W7 (psychiatrists) | – |
| W8 (psychologists, nurses) | ||||
| W9 (total professionals) | ||||
| High intensity residential care, e.g. hostel | A9 | P8 | W24 (psychiatrists) | – |
| W25 (nurses) | ||||
| Residential care (others), e.g. supported accommodation/group homes | A10 | P9 | W14 (psychiatrists) | – |
| 24-h medical support hospital and residential care | – | P13 | W31 (total professionals) | – |
| 24-h medical support non-acute hospital and residential care | – | – | W32 (psychiatrists) | – |
| W33 (total professionals) | ||||
| Residential care | A4 | P4 | W10 (psychiatrists) | – |
| W11 (psychologists) | ||||
| W12 (nurses) | ||||
| W13 (total professionals) | ||||
| Day care | ||||
| Acute health day care, e.g. day hospital | A5 | P5 | W14 (psychiatrists) | – |
| W15 (psychologists, nurses) | ||||
| W16 (total professionals) | ||||
| Work-related day care, e.g. social firm/enterprise | A11 | P11 | W29 (total professionals) | – |
| Non-acute health day care, e.g. day health centre | A6 | P6 | W17 (psychologists) | – |
| W18 (total professionals) | ||||
| Day care (others), e.g. social club | A7 | P7 | W19 (total professionals) | – |
| Acute and non-acute health day care | – | P10 | W26 (psychologists) | – |
| W27 (nurses) | ||||
| W28 (total professionals) | ||||
| Non-health day care | A12 | P12 | W30 (total professionals) | – |
| Outpatient care | ||||
| Non-acute non-mobile outpatient care, e.g. outpatient care centre | A8 | – | W20 (psychiatrists) | U4 (treated prevalence)a |
| W21 (psychologists) | U5 (treated incidence)a | |||
| W22 (nurses) | U6 (frequency)a | |||
| W23 (total professionals) | ||||
aThe measured value unit is No. per 1000 IH
bThe measured value unit is No. of days
cThe measured value unit is No. per 100 discharges
dW3 = W1+W2+other professionals (e.g. occupational therapists, care assistants and social workers)
No. number, IH inhabitants
Fig. 2A self-organising map (SOM) example using the resource utilisation (USE) dataset. a The USE dataset table with six indicators (column) for 106 mental health areas (row). b The USE-SOM created by learning the USE dataset. c The visualisation examples of the USE-SOM. (c1) The indicator value planes underneath the USE-SOM. A mental health area, B5 is located on a neuron of the USE-SOM where its six indicator value locations are the same through the planes. (c2) The mental health areas are interpolated into the USE-SOM. The area labels are coloured in blue for Biscay, red for Gipuzkoa and black for the Catalonia areas. (c3) The property shape plane of the USE-SOM. A shape in a neuron represents the six indicator values of the neuron. The star glyph shape is created by marking the indicator values on the six evenly angled branches from the centre. (c4) A weight distribution is visualised on the USE-SOM. If a neuron has high weight its colour is red, while a low weight is indicated in blue
Fig. 3The SOMNet analysis procedure applied to this study based on the EbCA process. The partial EbCA is shown (the full version is in Fig. 1b). The SOMNet process is indicated in black in the grey shaded area of the mid-processing phase of the EbCA. The analytical processes of the SOMNet are iterative until the analytical goals are achieved for knowledge discovery
Fig. 4The visual identification of the system outliers in the initial USE-SOM. a The initial USE-SOM with the small mental health areas labelled (black, blue and red for Catalonia, Biscay and Gipuzkoa areas, respectively). The identified outlier areas are circled in orange. b The six indicator value planes of the USE-SOM showing the extreme values of the circled areas. The darker grey colour indicates the higher indicator value
Fig. 5The visual identification of the global and local patterns of the mental health systems in Spain. The input SOMs are in a AVA-SOM, b PLA-SOM and c WOF-SOM, and the output SOM is in d USE-SOM. Their data property shape planes are visualised in (a'), (b'), (c') and (d'), respectively. The corresponding indicator values are pointed on the evenly angled star branches and connected to yield the shape. The legend of the property shape for each SOM is given with the order of indicators shown clockwise
The input- and output-driven analyses of indicators for acute hospital care. The indicator values are provided (A) by the expert knowledge and estimated (B) by the SOMNet. The SOMNet estimations for the output-driven and new input-driven analysis of the indicator, W1 (the number of psychiatrists), are also provided. The values of the indicators are qualitatively categorised from low to high for their quantitative value range from minimum (min) to maximum (max) in the form of [min–max] using a 20% interval
| Input indicator | Analysis | Output indicator | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discharge ( | length of stay ( | re-admission ( | ||||
| Acute hospital care |
| [0.16–0.89] | ||||
| Availability | (A) 0.35 | input-driven | (B) 2.59 | (B) 17.74 | (B) 10.75 | |
| low-medium | → | low-medium | low-medium | low-medium | ||
| Acute hospital care |
| [7.13–26.68] | ||||
| Placement | (A) 12.50 | input-driven | (B) 2.46 | (B) 18.75 | (B) 10.79 | |
| low-medium | → | low-medium | low-medium | low-medium | ||
| Acute hospital care |
| [0.16–5.23] | ||||
| Psychiatrists |
| input-driven |
|
|
| |
|
| → |
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| (A) 2.50 | (A) 19.00 | (A) 10.00 | |
|
| ← | low-medium | low-medium | low-medium | ||
|
|
| input-driven |
|
|
| |
|
| → |
|
|
| ||
| Acute hospital care |
| [0.33–10.55] | ||||
| Psychologist + nurses | (A) 5.50 | input-driven | (B) 2.44 | (B) 19.63 | (B) 10.67 | |
| medium | → | low-medium | low-medium | low-medium | ||
| Acute hospital care |
| [1.84–24.40] | ||||
| Total professionals | (A) 14.00 | input-driven | (B) 2.44 | (B) 19.63 | (B) 10.67 | |
| medium | → | low-medium | low-medium | low-medium | ||
Fig. 6Visual analysis of the input and output indicator patterns by the SOMNet. a The output USE-SOM with areas. b The value planes of the output indicators, U1, U2 and U3. c The output pattern comparison using the input-driven analysis. d The input WOF-SOM with areas. e The value plane for the input indicator, W1. f The input pattern comparison using the output-driven analysis. c' The output USE-SOM pattern for the newly given W1 by the SOMNet analysis
Fig. 7The feasibility results of the decision support systems model using the SOMNet approach. The average scores of the four feasibility evaluation dimensions are compared between the SOMNet and the other operation and visualisation approaches previously used in mental health studies. Two other dimensions (novelty and potentiality) are used separately to assess the SOMNet approach