Cargando…
Detailed Clinical Models: A Review
OBJECTIVES: Due to the increasing use of electronic patient records and other health care information technology, we see an increase in requests to utilize these data. A highly level of standardization is required during the gathering of these data in the clinical context in order to use it for anal...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Society of Medical Informatics
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092133/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21818440 http://dx.doi.org/10.4258/hir.2010.16.4.201 |
_version_ | 1782203358343331840 |
---|---|
author | Goossen, William Goossen-Baremans, Anneke van der Zel, Michael |
author_facet | Goossen, William Goossen-Baremans, Anneke van der Zel, Michael |
author_sort | Goossen, William |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Due to the increasing use of electronic patient records and other health care information technology, we see an increase in requests to utilize these data. A highly level of standardization is required during the gathering of these data in the clinical context in order to use it for analyses. Detailed Clinical Models (DCM) have been created toward this purpose and several initiatives have been implemented in various parts of the world to create standardized models. This paper presents a review of DCM. METHODS: Two types of analyses are presented; one comparing DCM against health care information architectures and a second bottom up approach from concept analysis to representation. In addition core parts of the draft ISO standard 13972 on DCM are used such as clinician involvement, data element specification, modeling, meta information, and repository and governance. RESULTS: Six initiatives were selected: Intermountain Healthcare, 13606/OpenEHR Archetypes, Clinical Templates, Clinical Contents Models, Health Level 7 templates, and Dutch Detailed Clinical Models. Each model selected was reviewed for their overall development, involvement of clinicians, use of data types, code bindings, expressing semantics, modeling, meta information, use of repository and governance. CONCLUSIONS: Using both a top down and bottom up approach to comparison reveals many commonalties and differences between initiatives. Important differences include the use of or lack of a reference model and expressiveness of models. Applying clinical data element standards facilitates the use of conceptual DCM models in different technical representations. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3092133 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | Korean Society of Medical Informatics |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30921332011-07-13 Detailed Clinical Models: A Review Goossen, William Goossen-Baremans, Anneke van der Zel, Michael Healthc Inform Res Review Article OBJECTIVES: Due to the increasing use of electronic patient records and other health care information technology, we see an increase in requests to utilize these data. A highly level of standardization is required during the gathering of these data in the clinical context in order to use it for analyses. Detailed Clinical Models (DCM) have been created toward this purpose and several initiatives have been implemented in various parts of the world to create standardized models. This paper presents a review of DCM. METHODS: Two types of analyses are presented; one comparing DCM against health care information architectures and a second bottom up approach from concept analysis to representation. In addition core parts of the draft ISO standard 13972 on DCM are used such as clinician involvement, data element specification, modeling, meta information, and repository and governance. RESULTS: Six initiatives were selected: Intermountain Healthcare, 13606/OpenEHR Archetypes, Clinical Templates, Clinical Contents Models, Health Level 7 templates, and Dutch Detailed Clinical Models. Each model selected was reviewed for their overall development, involvement of clinicians, use of data types, code bindings, expressing semantics, modeling, meta information, use of repository and governance. CONCLUSIONS: Using both a top down and bottom up approach to comparison reveals many commonalties and differences between initiatives. Important differences include the use of or lack of a reference model and expressiveness of models. Applying clinical data element standards facilitates the use of conceptual DCM models in different technical representations. Korean Society of Medical Informatics 2010-12 2010-12-31 /pmc/articles/PMC3092133/ /pubmed/21818440 http://dx.doi.org/10.4258/hir.2010.16.4.201 Text en © 2010 The Korean Society of Medical Informatics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Goossen, William Goossen-Baremans, Anneke van der Zel, Michael Detailed Clinical Models: A Review |
title | Detailed Clinical Models: A Review |
title_full | Detailed Clinical Models: A Review |
title_fullStr | Detailed Clinical Models: A Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Detailed Clinical Models: A Review |
title_short | Detailed Clinical Models: A Review |
title_sort | detailed clinical models: a review |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092133/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21818440 http://dx.doi.org/10.4258/hir.2010.16.4.201 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT goossenwilliam detailedclinicalmodelsareview AT goossenbaremansanneke detailedclinicalmodelsareview AT vanderzelmichael detailedclinicalmodelsareview |