User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction

, Volume 21, Issue 4–5, pp 377–406 | Cite as

Towards personalized decision support in the dementia domain based on clinical practice guidelines

Original Paper

Abstract

A set of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines has been synthesized and integrated in the clinical decision support system DMSS-R (Dementia Management and Support System) to support clinical routines and reasoning processes as performed by individual health professionals in daily practice. DMSS-R provides advice, tailored to individual and often exceptional patient cases, to the user while providing guidance to the next step in the assessments and support for hypothesis generation and evaluation throughout the process. This paper describes DMSS-R and the results of a case study in clinical practice where the system was used. The case study included interviews and observations of the clinical investigation process as undertaken in 41 real patient cases with suspected dementia. Two physicians participated, one of whom was considered a novice regarding dementia while the other had a moderate level of skills. Initially, both physicians were unfamiliar with DMSS-R. A group of nurses together with care personnel and relatives were also involved. The most important contribution of DMSS-R at the point of care, apart from the tailored explanatory support related to a patient case, was the educational support it provided. This was partly manifested in a change of routines in the encounter with patients. Aspects regarding the individual health care professional’s need for a personalized support system are discussed and put in relation to the team’s need for support, and in relation to the diversity of disease manifestations in this group of patients, which reinforces patient-centric assessments.

Keywords

Clinical decision-support systems Dementia Activity theory Continuing medical education Clinical practice guidelines Clinical practice Interaction design Activity-centered design Evaluation Case study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edn., DSM-III-R. American Psychiatric Association (1987)Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn., text revision (DSM-IV-TR). American Psychiatric Association (1994)Google Scholar
  3. Arocha J.F., Wang D., Patel V.L.: Identifying reasoning strategies in medical decision making: a methodological guide. J. Biomed. Inform. 38(2), 154–171 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benner P., Tanner C.: Clinical judgment: how expert nurses use intuition. Am. J. Nurs. 87, 23–31 (1987)Google Scholar
  5. Berg M.: Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int. J. Med. Inform. 55, 87–101 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beuscart-Zéphir M., Anceaux F., Crinquette V., Renard J.: Integrating users’ activity modeling in the design and assessment of hospital electronic patient records: the example of anesthesia. Int. J. Med. Inform. 64(2–3), 157–171 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bødker S.: A human activity approach to user interfaces. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, 171–195 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cawsey A.J., Jones R.B., Pearson J.: The evaluation of a personalised health information system for patients with cancer. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 10(1), 47–72 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chittaro, L., Carchietti, E., De Marco, L., Zampa, A.: Personalized Emergency Medical Assistance for Disabled People. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 21. doi:10.1007/s11257-010-9092-2
  10. Cohen T., Blatter B., Almeida C., Shortliffe E., Patel V.: A cognitive blueprint of collaboration in context: distributed cognition in the psychiatric emergency department. Artif. Intell. Med. 37(2), 73–83 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cortellessa, G., Cesta, A.: Evaluating mixed-initiative systems: an experimental approach. In: ICAPS-06. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, pp. 172–181. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA (2006)Google Scholar
  12. do Amaral M., Satomura Y., Honda M., Sato T.: A psychiatric diagnostic system integrating probabilistic and categorical reasoning. Methods Inf. Med. 34, 232–243 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. Engeström Y.: Expansive visibilization of work: an activity-theoretical perspective. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 8, 63–93 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Folstein M.F., Folstein S.E., McHugh P.R.: Mini-Mental-State: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 12, 189–198 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox J., Das S.: Safe and sound: artificial intelligence in hazardous applications. AAAI and MIT Press, Menlo Park (2000)Google Scholar
  16. Gartner, J., Tien, A., Damasio, L., Pereira, L.: Psychiatric diagnosis from the viewpoint of computational logic. In: Lloyd, J., et al. (eds.) Proc. of First International Conference on Computational Logic—CL2000. LNAI 1861, pp. 1362–1376. Springer Verlag (2000)Google Scholar
  17. Herrero, B., Laita, L., Roanes-Lozano, E.R., Maojo, V., Ledesma, L., Laita, L.: A symbolic computation based expert system for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. In: Calmet, J., Benhamou, E., Caprotti, O., Henocque, L., Sorge, V. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence, Automated Reasoning, and Symbolic Computation—AISC 2002, LNAI 2385, pp. 39–50. Springer Verlag (2002)Google Scholar
  18. Iliffe S., Austin T., Wilcock J., Bryans M., Turner S., Downs M.: Design and implementation of a computer decision support system for the diagnosis and management of dementia syndromes in primary care. Methods Inf. Med. 2, 98–104 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. Kaplan B.: Evaluating informatics application—clinical decision support systems literature review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 64, 15–37 (2001a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan B.: Evaluating informatics applications—some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int. J. Med. Inform. 64, 39–56 (2001b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaptelinin V.: Activity theory: implications for human–computer interaction. In: Nardi, B. (ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 103–116. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  22. Kaptelinin V., Nardi B.: Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  23. Karlsson, D.: Aspects of the use of medical decision-support systems—the role of context in decision support. Thesis, Institute of Technology, Linköping University (2001)Google Scholar
  24. Kuuti K.: Activity theory as a potential framework for human–computer interaction research. In: Nardi, B. (ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 17–44. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  25. Leprohon J., Patel V.L.: Decision making strategies for telephone triage in emergency medical services. Med. Decis. Making 15, 240–253 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindgren, H.: Decision support in dementia care—developing systems for interactive reasoning. Thesis, Computer Science, Umeå University, UMINF, 07.02 (2007). http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-1138. Accessed 26 Nov 2009
  27. Lindgren H.: Decision support system supporting clinical reasoning process—an evaluation study in dementia care. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 136, 315–320 (2008a)Google Scholar
  28. Lindgren, H.: Collaborative knowledge building for decision-support system development. In: Forbig, P, Paternó, F, Mark Pejtersen, A. (eds.) Human–Computer Interaction Symposium (HCIS2008). IFIP 272, pp. 201–206. Springer, Boston (2008b)Google Scholar
  29. Lindgren, H.: Conceptual model of activity as tool for developing a dementia care support system. In: Ackerman, M., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Simone, C., Wulf, V. (eds.) Knowledge Management in Action (KMIA2008). IFIP 270, pp. 97–109, Springer, Boston (2008c)Google Scholar
  30. Lindgren, H.: Towards using argumentation schemes and critical questions for supporting diagnostic reasoning in the dementia domain. In: Proc. Computational Models of Natural Arguments (CMNA’09), Pasadena, CA, pp. 10–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. Lindgren H., Eklund P.: Differential diagnosis of dementia in an argumentation framework. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 17(4), 387–394 (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindgren, H., Winnberg, P.: Evaluation of a semantic web application for collaborative knowledge building in the dementia domain. In: Proc. e-Health 2010—3rd International ICST Conference on Electronic Healthcare for the 21st Century, Casablanca, Morocco. Publisher: LNICST (2010a). ISBN: 978-963-9995-27-7Google Scholar
  33. Lindgren, H., Winnberg, P.: A model for interaction design of personalised knowledge systems in the health domain. In: Proc. 5th International Workshop on Personalisation for e-Health 2010, Casablanca, Morocco (2010b) (to appear)Google Scholar
  34. Lucas P.: Symbolic diagnosis and its formalisation. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 12(2), 109–146 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKeith I.G. et al.: Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: third report of the DLB consortium. Neurology 65(12), 1863–1872 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neary D., Snowden J.S., Gustafson L., Passant U., Stuss D., Black S., Freedman M., Kertesz A., Robert P.H., Albert M., Boone K., Miller B.L., Cummings J., Benson D.F.: Frontotemporal lobar degeneration. A consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria. Neurology 51, 1546–1554 (1998)Google Scholar
  37. Nieves, J.C., Osorio, M., Cortés, U.: Modality-based argumentation using possibilistic stable models. In: Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA’07), Hyderabad, India, pp. 35–41 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. Norman D.A.: Human-centered design considered harmful. Interactions 12(4), 14–19 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ólafsdóttir M., Marcusson J., Skoog I.: Mental disorders among elderly people in primary care: the linköping study. Acta Psychiat. Scand. 104, 12–18 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Patel V.L., Kushniruk A.W., Yang S., Yale J.F.: Impact of a computerized patient record system of medical data collection, organization and reasoning. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 7, 569–585 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Patel V.L., Arocha J.F., Diermeier M., How J., Mottur-Pilson C.: Cognitive psychological studies of representation and use of clinical practice guidelines. Int. J. Med. Inform. 63, 147–167 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Patel V., Kaufman D., Arocha J.: Emerging paradigms of cognition in medical decision-making. J. Biomed. Inform. 35, 52–75 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Petersen R.C., Stevens J.C., Ganguli M., Tangalos E.G., Cummings J.L., DeKosky S.T.: Practice parameter: early detection of dementia: mild cognitive impairment (an evidence-based review). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 56, 1133–1142 (2001)Google Scholar
  44. Reisberg B.: Functional assessment staging (FAST). Psychopharmacol. Bull. 24, 653–659 (1988)Google Scholar
  45. Reisberg B., Auer S.R., Monteiro I.M.: Behavioural pathology in Alzheimer’s Disease (BEHAVE-AD) rating scale. Int. Psychogeriatr. 8, 301–308 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shortliffe E., Buchanan B.: A model of inexact reasoning in medicine. Math. Biosci. 23, 351–379 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singh G., Hawkins L., Whymark G.: An integrated model of collaborative knowledge building. Interdiscipl. J. Learn. Objects 3, 85–105 (2007)Google Scholar
  48. Tudor R.S., Hovorka R., Cavan D.A., Meeking D., Hejlesen O.K., Andreassen S.: DIAS-NIDDM—a model-based decision support system for insulin dose adjustment in insulin treated subjects with NIDDM. Comput. Methods and Programs Biomed. 56, 175–192 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Bemmel J., Musen M.: Handbook of Medical Informatics. Springer Verlag, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  50. Vygotsky L.: Mind in Society: The development Of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  51. Walton D., Reed C., Macagno F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  52. Wesnes K., McKeith I., Ferrara R., Emre M., Ser T.D., Spano P., Cicin-Sain A., Anand R., Spiegel R.: Effects of rivastigmine on cognitive function in dementia with Lewy bodies: A randomised placebo-controlled international study using the Cognitive Drug Research computerised assessment system. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 13(3), 183–192 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. World Health Organisation (WHO): International classification of functioning, ability and health: ICF (2001). http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/. Accessed 26 Nov 2009

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations