Advertisement

Information architecture for a patient-specific dashboard in head and neck tumor boards

  • Alexander Oeser
  • Jan Gaebel
  • Andreas Dietz
  • Susanne Wiegand
  • Steffen Oeltze-Jafra
Original Article
  • 119 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Overcoming the flaws of current data management conditions in head and neck oncology could enable integrated information systems specifically tailored to the needs of medical experts in a tumor board meeting. Clinical dashboards are a promising method to assist various aspects of the decision-making process in such cognitively demanding scenarios. However, in order to provide extensive and intuitive assistance to the participating physicians, the design and development of such a system have to be user-centric. To accomplish this task, conceptual methods need to be performed prior to the technical development and integration stages.

Methods

We have conducted a qualitative survey including eight clinical experts with different levels of expertise in the field of head and neck oncology. According to the principles of information architecture, the survey focused on the identification and causal interconnection of necessary metrics for information assessment in the tumor board.

Results

Based on the feedback by the clinical experts, we have constructed a detailed map of the required information items for a tumor board dashboard in head and neck oncology. Furthermore, we have identified three distinct groups of metrics (patient, disease and therapy metrics) as well as specific recommendations for their structural and graphical implementation.

Conclusion

By using the information architecture, we were able to gather valuable feedback about the requirements and cognitive processes of the tumor board members. Those insights have helped us to develop a dashboard application that closely adapts to the specified needs and characteristics, and thus is primarily user-centric.

Keywords

Information architecture Tumor board Clinical dashboard User-centric design Assistance system 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank M. Stöhr, V. Zebralla and J. Müller for their valuable comments and suggestions in regard to this paper.

Funding

This project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the scope of the program “Entrepreneurial Regions” with Grant Number 03Z1LN11. The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This article does not contain patient information.

References

  1. 1.
    Murdoch TB, Detsky AS (2013) The inevitable application of big data to health care. JAMA 309(13):1351–1352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Knaup P, Harkener S, Ellsaesser KH, Haux R, Wiedemann T (2001) On the necessity of systematically planning clinical tumor documentation. Methods Inf Med 40(2):90–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaebel J, Cypko MA, Lemke HU (2016) Accessing patient information for probabilistic patient models using existing standards. Stud Health Technol Inform 223:107–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dowding D, Randell R, Gardner P, Fitzpatrick G, Dykes P, Favela J, Hamer S, Whitewood-Moores Z, Hardiker N, Borycki Currie L (2015) Dashboards for improving patient care: review of the literature. Int J Med Inform 84(2):87–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meier J, Boehm A, Kielhorn A, Dietz A, Bohn S, Neumuth T (2014) Design and evaluation of a multimedia electronic patient record “oncoflow” with clinical workflow assistance for head and neck tumor therapy. Int J CARS 9(6):949–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaebel J, Cypko MA, Oeltze-Jafra S (2017) Considering information up-to-dateness to increase the accuracy of therapy decision support systems. Stud Health Technol Inform 243:217–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stadler JG, Donlon K, Siewert JD, Franken T, Lewis NE (2016) Improving the efficiency and ease of healthcare analysis through use of data visualization dashboards. Big Data 4(2):129–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halford GS, Baker R, McCredden JE, Bain JD (2005) How many variables can humans process? Psychol Sci 16(1):70–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shneiderman B (1996) The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Proceedings 1996 IEEE symposium on visual languages, pp 336–343Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Few S (2006) Information dashboard design: the effective visual communication of data. O’Reilly & Associates, Cambridge (MA)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pauwels K, Ambler T, Clark B, LaPointe P, Reibstein D, Skiera B, Wierenga B, Wiesel T (2009) Dashboards as a service?: Why, what, how, and what research is needed? J Serv Res 12:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daley K, Richardson J, James I, Chambers A, Corbett D (2013) Clinical dashboard: use in older adult mental health wards. Psychiatr Online 37(3):85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Toms EG (2002) Information interaction: providing a framework for information architecture. J Am Soc Inf Sci 53(10):855–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karami M, Langarizadeh M, Fatehi M (2017) Evaluation of effective dashboards: key concepts and criteria. Open Med Inform J 11:52–57CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Batley NJ, Osman HO, Kazzi AA, Musallam KM (2011) Implementation of an emergency department computer system: design features that users value. J Emerg Med 41(6):693–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morgan MB, Branstetter BF, Lionetti DM, Richardson JS, Chang PJ (2008) The radiology digital dashboard: effects on report turnaround time. J Digit Imaging 21(1):50–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dolan JG, Veazie PJ, Russ AJ (2013) Development and initial evaluation of a treatment decision dashboard. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:51CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roche. NAVIFY\(^{{\rm TM}}\) Tumor Board solution—Roche diagnostics information solutions [Internet]. Navify\(^{{\rm TM}}\) Tumor Board. [cited 8th January 2018]. https://www.navify.com/tumorboard/
  19. 19.
    Cypko MA, Wojdziak J, Stoehr M, Kirchner B, Preim B, Dietz A, Lemke HU, Oeltze-Jafra S (2017) Visual verification of cancer staging for therapy decision support. Comput Graph Forum 36(3):109–120Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cypko MA, Stoehr M, Kozniewski M, Druzdzel MJ, Dietz A, Berliner L, Lemke HU (2017) Validation workflow for a clinical Bayesian network model in multidisciplinary decision making in head and neck oncology treatment. Int J CARS 12(11):1959–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lam H, Bertini E, Isenberg P, Plaisant C, Carpendale S (2012) Empirical studies in information visualization: seven scenarios. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 18(9):1520–1536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Isenberg T, Isenberg P, Chen J, Sedlmair M, Moller T (2013) A systematic review on the practice of evaluating visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 19(12):2818–2827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Oeser
    • 1
  • Jan Gaebel
    • 1
  • Andreas Dietz
    • 2
  • Susanne Wiegand
    • 2
  • Steffen Oeltze-Jafra
    • 1
  1. 1.Innovation Center Computer Assisted SurgeryLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity Hospital LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations