Architectural frameworks: defining the structures for implementing learning health systems

Background

The vision of transforming health systems into learning health systems (LHSs) that rapidly and continuously transform knowledge into improved health outcomes at lower cost is generating increased interest in government agencies, health organizations, and health research communities. While existing initiatives demonstrate that different approaches can succeed in making the LHS vision a reality, they are too varied in their goals, focus, and scale to be reproduced without undue effort. Indeed, the structures necessary to effectively design and implement LHSs on a larger scale are lacking. In this paper, we propose the use of architectural frameworks to develop LHSs that adhere to a recognized vision while being adapted to their specific organizational context. Architectural frameworks are high-level descriptions of an organization as a system; they capture the structure of its main components at varied levels, the interrelationships among these components, and the principles that guide their evolution. Because these frameworks support the analysis of LHSs and allow their outcomes to be simulated, they act as pre-implementation decision-support tools that identify potential barriers and enablers of system development. They thus increase the chances of successful LHS deployment.

Discussion

We present an architectural framework for LHSs that incorporates five dimensions—goals, scientific, social, technical, and ethical—commonly found in the LHS literature. The proposed architectural framework is comprised of six decision layers that model these dimensions. The performance layer models goals, the scientific layer models the scientific dimension, the organizational layer models the social dimension, the data layer and information technology layer model the technical dimension, and the ethics and security layer models the ethical dimension. We describe the types of decisions that must be made within each layer and identify methods to support decision-making.

Conclusion

In this paper, we outline a high-level architectural framework grounded in conceptual and empirical LHS literature. Applying this architectural framework can guide the development and implementation of new LHSs and the evolution of existing ones, as it allows for clear and critical understanding of the types of decisions that underlie LHS operations. Further research is required to assess and refine its generalizability and methods.

Clinical modeling--a critical analysis

BACKGROUND

Modeling clinical processes (and their informational representation) is a prerequisite for optimally enabling and supporting high quality and safe care through information and communication technology and meaningful use of gathered information.

OBJECTIVES

The paper investigates existing approaches to clinical modeling, thereby systematically analyzing the underlying principles, the consistency with and the integration opportunity to other existing or emerging projects, as well as the correctness of representing the reality of health and health services.

METHODS

The analysis is performed using an architectural framework for modeling real-world systems. In addition, fundamental work on the representation of facts, relations, and processes in the clinical domain by ontologies is applied, thereby including the integration of advanced methodologies such as translational and system medicine.

RESULTS

The paper demonstrates fundamental weaknesses and different maturity as well as evolutionary potential in the approaches considered. It offers a development process starting with the business domain and its ontologies, continuing with the Reference Model-Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) related conceptual models in the ICT ontology space, the information and the computational view, and concluding with the implementation details represented as engineering and technology view, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The existing approaches reflect at different levels the clinical domain, put the main focus on different phases of the development process instead of first establishing the real business process representation and therefore enable quite differently and partially limitedly the domain experts' involvement.