Modelling clinical experience data as an evidence for patient-oriented decision support

21st century (clinical) decision support in nursing and allied healthcare. Developing a learning health system: a reasoned design of a theoretical framework

In this paper, we present a framework for developing a Learning Health System (LHS) to provide means to a computerized clinical decision support system for allied healthcare and/or nursing professionals. LHSs are well suited to transform healthcare systems in a mission-oriented approach, and is being adopted by an increasing number of countries. Our theoretical framework provides a blueprint for organizing such a transformation with help of evidence based state of the art methodologies and techniques to eventually optimize personalized health and healthcare. Learning via health information technologies using LHS enables users to learn both individually and collectively, and independent of their location. These developments demand healthcare innovations beyond a disease focused orientation since clinical decision making in allied healthcare and nursing is mainly based on aspects of individuals' functioning, wellbeing and (dis)abilities. Developing LHSs depends heavily on intertwined social and technological innovation, and research and development. Crucial factors may be the transformation of the Internet of Things into the Internet of FAIR data & services. However, Electronic Health Record (EHR) data is in up to 80% unstructured including free text narratives and stored in various inaccessible data warehouses. Enabling the use of data as a driver for learning is challenged by interoperability and reusability.To address technical needs, key enabling technologies are suitable to convert relevant health data into machine actionable data and to develop algorithms for computerized decision support. To enable data conversions, existing classification and terminology systems serve as definition providers for natural language processing through (un)supervised learning.To facilitate clinical reasoning and personalized healthcare using LHSs, the development of personomics and functionomics are useful in allied healthcare and nursing. Developing these omics will be determined via text and data mining. This will focus on the relationships between social, psychological, cultural, behavioral and economic determinants, and human functioning.Furthermore, multiparty collaboration is crucial to develop LHSs, and man-machine interaction studies are required to develop a functional design and prototype. During development, validation and maintenance of the LHS continuous attention for challenges like data-drift, ethical, technical and practical implementation difficulties is required.

Toward a Value-Based Therapy Recommendation Model

Patient value is an important factor in clinical decision making, but conventionally, it is not incorporated in the decision processes. Clinical decision making has some clinical guidelines as a reference. There are very few value-based clinical guidelines, but knowledge about how values affect decision making is mentioned in some scattered studies in the literature. We use a literature review method to extract evidence and integrate it as part of the decision-making model. In this paper, a value-based therapy recommendation comprehensive model is proposed. A literature analysis is conducted to collect value-based evidence. The patients' values are defined and classified with fine granularity. Categorized values and candidate therapies are used in combination as filtering keywords to build this literature database. The literature analysis method generates a literature database used as a source of arguments for influencing decision making based on values. Then, a formalism model is put forward to integrate the value-based evidence with clinical evidence, and the literature databases and clinical guidelines are collected and analyzed to populate the evidence repository. During the decision-making processes, the evidence repository is utilized to match patients' clinical information and values. Decision-makers can dynamically adjust the relative importance of the two pieces of evidence to obtain a treatment plan that is more suitable for the patient. A prototype system was implemented using a case study for breast cancer and validated for feasibility and effectiveness through controlled experiments.

Linked Argumentation Graphs for Multidisciplinary Decision Support

Multidisciplinary clinical decision-making has become increasingly important for complex diseases, such as cancers, as medicine has become very specialized. Multiagent systems (MASs) provide a suitable framework to support multidisciplinary decisions. In the past years, a number of agent-oriented approaches have been developed on the basis of argumentation models. However, very limited work has focused, thus far, on systematic support for argumentation in communication among multiple agents spanning various decision sites and holding varying beliefs. There is a need for an appropriate argumentation scheme and identification of recurring styles or patterns of multiagent argument linking to enable versatile multidisciplinary decision applications. We propose, in this paper, a method of linked argumentation graphs and three types of patterns corresponding to scenarios of agents changing the minds of others (argumentation) and their own (belief revision): the collaboration pattern, the negotiation pattern, and the persuasion pattern. This approach is demonstrated using a case study of breast cancer and lifelong recommendations, as the survival rates of diagnosed cancer patients are rising and comorbidity is the norm.

Towards a systematic approach for argumentation, recommendation, and explanation in clinical decision support

In clinical decision support, argumentation plays a key role while alternative reasons may be available to explain a given set of signs and symptoms, or alternative plans to treat a diagnosed disease. In literature, this key notion usually has closed boundary across approaches and lacks of openness and interoperability in Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) been built. In this paper, we propose a systematic approach for the representation of argumentation, their interpretation towards recommendation, and finally explanation in clinical decision support. A generic argumentation and recommendation scheme lays the foundation of the approach. On the basis of this, argumentation rules are represented using Resource Description Framework (RDF) for clinical guidelines, a rule engine developed for their interpretation, and recommendation rules represented using Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL). A pair of proof knowledge graphs are made available in an integrated clinical decision environment to explain the argumentation and recommendation rationale, so that decision makers are informed of not just what are recommended but also why. A case study of triple assessment, a common procedure in the National Health Service of UK for women suspected of breast cancer, is used to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach. In conducting hypothesis testing, we evaluate the metrics of accuracy, variation, adherence, time, satisfaction, confidence, learning, and integration of the prototype CDSS developed for the case study in comparison with a conventional CDSS and also human clinicians without CDSS. The results are presented and discussed.