Advertisement

Using Constraint Logic Programming to Implement Iterative Actions and Numerical Measures during Mitigation of Concurrently Applied Clinical Practice Guidelines

  • Martin Michalowski
  • Szymon Wilk
  • Wojtek Michalowski
  • Di Lin
  • Ken Farion
  • Subhra Mohapatra
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7885)

Abstract

There is a pressing need in clinical practice to mitigate (identify and address) adverse interactions that occur when a comorbid patient is managed according to multiple concurrently applied disease-specific clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). In our previous work we described an automatic algorithm for mitigating pairs of CPGs. The algorithm constructs logical models of processed CPGs and employs constraint logic programming to solve them. However, the original algorithm was unable to handle two important issues frequently occurring in CPGs – iterative actions forming a cycle and numerical measurements. Dealing with these two issues in practice relies on a physician’s knowledge and the manual analysis of CPGs. Yet for guidelines to be considered stand-alone and an easy to use clinical decision support tool this process needs to be automated. In this paper we take an additional step towards building such a tool by extending the original mitigation algorithm to handle cycles and numerical measurements present in CPGs.

Keywords

Clinical Decision Support Systems Computerized Clinical Practice Guidelines Constraint Logic Programming Comorbidity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fox, J., Glasspool, D., Patkar, V., Austin, M., Black, L., South, M., Robertson, D., Vincent, C.: Delivering clinical decision support services: There is nothing as practical as a good theory. J. Biomed. Inform. 43, 831–843 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sittig, D., Wright, A., Osheroff, J., Middleton, B., Teich, J., Ash, J., Campbell, E., Bates, D.: Grand challenges in clinical decision support. J. Biomed. Inform. 41, 387–392 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilk, S., Michalowski, W., Michalowski, M., Farion, K., Hing, M., Mohapatra, S.: Mitigation of adverse interactions in pairs of clinical practice guidelines using constraint logic programming. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 46(2), 341–353 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Isern, D., Moreno, A.: Computer-based execution of clinical guidelines: A review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 77, 787–808 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hing, M., Michalowski, M., Wilk, S., Michalowski, W., Farion, K.: Identifying inconsistencies in multiple clinical practice guidelines for a patient with co-morbidity. In: Proceedings of KEDDH 2010, pp. 447–452 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tarjan, R.: Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 1(2), 146–160 (1972)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The ECLiPSe Constraint Programming System, http://www.eclipseclp.org

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Michalowski
    • 1
  • Szymon Wilk
    • 2
  • Wojtek Michalowski
    • 3
  • Di Lin
    • 4
  • Ken Farion
    • 5
  • Subhra Mohapatra
    • 3
  1. 1.Adventium LabsMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Poznan University of TechnologyPoznanPoland
  3. 3.University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  4. 4.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Children’s Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations