Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models: A case-study approach

Mor Peleg, Samson Tu, Jonathan Bury, Paolo Ciccarese, John Fox, Robert Greenes, Richard Hall, Peter D. Johnson, Neill Jones, Anand Kumar, Silvia Miksch, Silvana Quaglini, Andreas Seyfang, Edwarrd H. Shortliffe, Mario Stefanelli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

405 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Many groups are developing computer-interpretable clinical guidelines (CIGs) for use during clinical encounters. CIGs use "Task-Network Models" for representation but differ in their approaches to addressing particular modeling challenges. We have studied similarities and differences between CIGs in order to identify issues that must be resolved before a consensus on a set of common components can be developed. Design: We compared six models: Asbru, EON, GLIF, GUIDE, PRODIGY, and PROforma. Collaborators from groups that created these models represented, in their own formalisms, portions of two guidelines: the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine's guideline for managing chronic cough and the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Measurements: We compared the models according to eight components that capture the structure of CIGs. The components enable modelers to encode guidelines as plans that organize decision and action tasks in networks. They also enable the encoded guidelines to be linked with patient data - a key requirement for enabling patient-specific decision support. Results: We found consensus on many components, including plan organization, expression language, conceptual medical record model, medical concept model, and data abstractions. Differences were most apparent in underlying decision models, goal representation, use of scenarios, and structured medical actions. Conclusion: We identified guideline components that the CIG community could adopt as standards. Some of the participants are pursuing standardization of these components under the auspices of HL7.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)52-68
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Consensus
Internal Medicine
Cough
Medical Records
Language
Organizations
Hypertension
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models : A case-study approach. / Peleg, Mor; Tu, Samson; Bury, Jonathan; Ciccarese, Paolo; Fox, John; Greenes, Robert; Hall, Richard; Johnson, Peter D.; Jones, Neill; Kumar, Anand; Miksch, Silvia; Quaglini, Silvana; Seyfang, Andreas; Shortliffe, Edwarrd H.; Stefanelli, Mario.

In: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 10, No. 1, 01.2003, p. 52-68.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Peleg, M, Tu, S, Bury, J, Ciccarese, P, Fox, J, Greenes, R, Hall, R, Johnson, PD, Jones, N, Kumar, A, Miksch, S, Quaglini, S, Seyfang, A, Shortliffe, EH & Stefanelli, M 2003, 'Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models: A case-study approach', Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 52-68. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1135
Peleg, Mor ; Tu, Samson ; Bury, Jonathan ; Ciccarese, Paolo ; Fox, John ; Greenes, Robert ; Hall, Richard ; Johnson, Peter D. ; Jones, Neill ; Kumar, Anand ; Miksch, Silvia ; Quaglini, Silvana ; Seyfang, Andreas ; Shortliffe, Edwarrd H. ; Stefanelli, Mario. / Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models : A case-study approach. In: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2003 ; Vol. 10, No. 1. pp. 52-68.
@article{cd5b8e34b39645e3a605d3413041f6c8,
title = "Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models: A case-study approach",
abstract = "Objectives: Many groups are developing computer-interpretable clinical guidelines (CIGs) for use during clinical encounters. CIGs use {"}Task-Network Models{"} for representation but differ in their approaches to addressing particular modeling challenges. We have studied similarities and differences between CIGs in order to identify issues that must be resolved before a consensus on a set of common components can be developed. Design: We compared six models: Asbru, EON, GLIF, GUIDE, PRODIGY, and PROforma. Collaborators from groups that created these models represented, in their own formalisms, portions of two guidelines: the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine's guideline for managing chronic cough and the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Measurements: We compared the models according to eight components that capture the structure of CIGs. The components enable modelers to encode guidelines as plans that organize decision and action tasks in networks. They also enable the encoded guidelines to be linked with patient data - a key requirement for enabling patient-specific decision support. Results: We found consensus on many components, including plan organization, expression language, conceptual medical record model, medical concept model, and data abstractions. Differences were most apparent in underlying decision models, goal representation, use of scenarios, and structured medical actions. Conclusion: We identified guideline components that the CIG community could adopt as standards. Some of the participants are pursuing standardization of these components under the auspices of HL7.",
author = "Mor Peleg and Samson Tu and Jonathan Bury and Paolo Ciccarese and John Fox and Robert Greenes and Richard Hall and Johnson, {Peter D.} and Neill Jones and Anand Kumar and Silvia Miksch and Silvana Quaglini and Andreas Seyfang and Shortliffe, {Edwarrd H.} and Mario Stefanelli",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1197/jamia.M1135",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "52--68",
journal = "Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA",
issn = "1067-5027",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models

T2 - A case-study approach

AU - Peleg, Mor

AU - Tu, Samson

AU - Bury, Jonathan

AU - Ciccarese, Paolo

AU - Fox, John

AU - Greenes, Robert

AU - Hall, Richard

AU - Johnson, Peter D.

AU - Jones, Neill

AU - Kumar, Anand

AU - Miksch, Silvia

AU - Quaglini, Silvana

AU - Seyfang, Andreas

AU - Shortliffe, Edwarrd H.

AU - Stefanelli, Mario

PY - 2003/1

Y1 - 2003/1

N2 - Objectives: Many groups are developing computer-interpretable clinical guidelines (CIGs) for use during clinical encounters. CIGs use "Task-Network Models" for representation but differ in their approaches to addressing particular modeling challenges. We have studied similarities and differences between CIGs in order to identify issues that must be resolved before a consensus on a set of common components can be developed. Design: We compared six models: Asbru, EON, GLIF, GUIDE, PRODIGY, and PROforma. Collaborators from groups that created these models represented, in their own formalisms, portions of two guidelines: the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine's guideline for managing chronic cough and the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Measurements: We compared the models according to eight components that capture the structure of CIGs. The components enable modelers to encode guidelines as plans that organize decision and action tasks in networks. They also enable the encoded guidelines to be linked with patient data - a key requirement for enabling patient-specific decision support. Results: We found consensus on many components, including plan organization, expression language, conceptual medical record model, medical concept model, and data abstractions. Differences were most apparent in underlying decision models, goal representation, use of scenarios, and structured medical actions. Conclusion: We identified guideline components that the CIG community could adopt as standards. Some of the participants are pursuing standardization of these components under the auspices of HL7.

AB - Objectives: Many groups are developing computer-interpretable clinical guidelines (CIGs) for use during clinical encounters. CIGs use "Task-Network Models" for representation but differ in their approaches to addressing particular modeling challenges. We have studied similarities and differences between CIGs in order to identify issues that must be resolved before a consensus on a set of common components can be developed. Design: We compared six models: Asbru, EON, GLIF, GUIDE, PRODIGY, and PROforma. Collaborators from groups that created these models represented, in their own formalisms, portions of two guidelines: the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine's guideline for managing chronic cough and the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Measurements: We compared the models according to eight components that capture the structure of CIGs. The components enable modelers to encode guidelines as plans that organize decision and action tasks in networks. They also enable the encoded guidelines to be linked with patient data - a key requirement for enabling patient-specific decision support. Results: We found consensus on many components, including plan organization, expression language, conceptual medical record model, medical concept model, and data abstractions. Differences were most apparent in underlying decision models, goal representation, use of scenarios, and structured medical actions. Conclusion: We identified guideline components that the CIG community could adopt as standards. Some of the participants are pursuing standardization of these components under the auspices of HL7.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037246265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037246265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1197/jamia.M1135

DO - 10.1197/jamia.M1135

M3 - Article

C2 - 12509357

AN - SCOPUS:0037246265

VL - 10

SP - 52

EP - 68

JO - Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

JF - Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

SN - 1067-5027

IS - 1

ER -