| Literature DB >> 30518578 |
Ian Litchfield1, Ciaron Hoye2, David Shukla1, Ruth Backman1, Alice Turner3, Mark Lee4, Phil Weber5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the UK, primary care is seen as the optimal context for delivering care to an ageing population with a growing number of long-term conditions. However, if it is to meet these demands effectively and efficiently, a more precise understanding of existing care processes is required to ensure their configuration is based on robust evidence. This need to understand and optimise organisational performance is not unique to healthcare, and in industries such as telecommunications or finance, a methodology known as 'process mining' has become an established and successful method to identify how an organisation can best deploy resources to meet the needs of its clients and customers. Here and for the first time in the UK, we will apply it to primary care settings to gain a greater understanding of how patients with two of the most common chronic conditions are managed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be conducted in three phases; first, we will apply process mining algorithms to the data held on the clinical management system of four practices of varying characteristics in the West Midlands to determine how each interacts with patients with hypertension or type 2 diabetes. Second, we will use traditional process mapping exercises at each practice to manually produce maps of care processes for the selected condition. Third, with the aid of staff and patients at each practice, we will compare and contrast the process models produced by process mining with the process maps produced via manual techniques, review differences and similarities between them and the relative importance of each. The first pilot study will be on hypertension and the second for patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been provided by East Midlands-Leicester South Regional Ethics Committee (REC reference 18/EM/0284). Having refined the automated production of maps of care processes, we can explore pinch points and bottlenecks, process variants and unexpected behaviour, and make informed recommendations to improve the quality and efficiency of care. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: health informatics; organisation of health services; primary Care
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30518578 PMCID: PMC6286474 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019947
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Process mining concepts
| Concept | Description | Healthcare example |
| Process | Structured set of activities and connections relating to patients’ interactions with a general practice | Patient’s regular medication review |
| Activity | A specific piece of work | Measuring patient’s blood levels |
| Event | An instance of an activity occurring at a specific time | Measuring patient Smith’s HbA1c levels at 14:00 1 January 2018 |
| Case | A given instance of a process (eg, for a specific patient) | Medication review for patient Smith |
| Trace | The recorded events evidencing the activities of a given case | Register, review meds, prescribe drug A, refer for lifestyle advice |
| Timestamp | Date and time an event occurred | |
| Resource | Materials, staff or other assets required by an activity | Healthcare assistant with specialist phlebotomy skills |
| Supplementary information | Additional data may be used to enhance or enrich the process | GP name, practice location, medication dosage |
GP, general practitioner.
Figure 1Simplified example of process model from the first iteration of mining from data relating to part of the process for type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment, illustrating common complicating factors (multiple underlying process variants, noisy data) requiring refinement to the mining algorithms and data interpretation.
Main file types of CMS data
| Variable | Content |
| Patient demography | 1. Practice ID. Patient ID, age, gender, registration date, date left practice and date of death |
| Clinical data | 1. Read coded diagnoses and symptoms, referrals to hospitals and specialists and some free text. Location and date of these events |
| Prescribing | Prescriptions written by the practice, date issued, formulation, strength, quantity and dosage |
| Vaccinations | Immunisations carried out at the practice |
| Consultations | Date, time and duration of consultation |
| Staff | Role and gender of staff who entered the above data |
| Practice | Practice ID. Patient list size, linked to number of GPs whole time equivalent, geographical location, Clinical Commissioning Group |
CMS, clinical management system; GP, general practitioner.