PDF herunterladen
Methods Inf Med 2013; 52(01): 43-50
DOI: 10.3414/ME12-01-0016
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Visualization of Medical Data Based on EHR Standards

G. Kopanitsa
1   Institute for Biological and Medical Imaging, Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany
3   Institute Cybernetic Center, Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
,
C. Hildebrand
1   Institute for Biological and Medical Imaging, Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany
,
J. Stausberg
2   Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany
,
K. H. Englmeier
1   Institute for Biological and Medical Imaging, Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

received: 14. März 2012

accepted: 20. Oktober 2012

Publikationsdatum:
20. Januar 2018 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Summary

Background: To organize an efficient interaction between a doctor and an EHR the data has to be presented in the most convenient way. Medical data presentation methods and models must be flexible in order to cover the needs of the users with different backgrounds and requirements. Most visualization methods are doctor oriented, however, there are indications that the involvement of patients can optimize healthcare.

Objectives: The research aims at specifying the state of the art of medical data visualization. The paper analyzes a number of projects and defines requirements for a generic ISO 13606 based data visualization method. In order to do so it starts with a systematic search for studies on EHR user interfaces.

Methods: In order to identify best practices visualization methods were evaluated according to the following criteria: limits of application, customizability, re-usability. The visualization methods were compared by using specified criteria.

Results: The review showed that the analyzed projects can contribute knowledge to the development of a generic visualization method. However, none of them proposed a model that meets all the necessary criteria for a re-usable standard based visualization method. The shortcomings were mostly related to the structure of current medical concept specifications.

Conclusion: The analysis showed that medical data visualization methods use hard-coded GUI, which gives little flexibility. So medical data visualization has to turn from a hardcoded user interface to generic methods. This requires a great effort because current standards are not suitable for organizing the management of visualization data. This contradiction between a generic method and a flexible and user-friendly data layout has to be overcome.

Keywords

Data visualization - ISO 13606 - graphical user interface - archetype
 

  • References

  • 1 Shneiderman B. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (3rd edition 1997). MA: Addison-Wesley Publishers; 1997.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz L, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2007; 8: 53-96.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brodlie K, Carpenter L, Earnshaw R, Gallop J, Hubbold R, Mumford A, Osland C, Quarendon P. Scientific Visualization, Techniques and Applications. Springer Verlag; 1992.
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Gershon N, Eick SG, Card S. Information visualization. ACM Interactions 1998; 5 (02) 9-15.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Card S, Mackinlay J. The structure of the information visualization design space. In: Proceedings of the InfoVis’97 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press; 1997: 92-99.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Green TRG, Petre M. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A `cognitive dimensions’ framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 1996; 7: 131-174.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Schönhage B, Eliëns A. A flexible architecture for user-adaptable visualization. In: NPIV ’97: Proceedings of the 1997 workshop on New paradigms in information visualization and manipulation. 8-10.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Smelcer JB, Miller-Jacobs H, Kantrovich L. Usability of Electronic Medical Records. Journal of Usability Studies 2009; 4 (02) 70-84.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Riet A, Berg M, Hiddema F, Sol K. Meeting patients’ needs with patient information systems: potential benefits of qualitative research methods. Int J Inf 2001; 64 (01) 1-14.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ralston JD, Revere D, Robins LS, Goldberg HI. Electronic Personal Health Records Come of Age. American Journal of Medical Quality 2006; 21 (03) suppl 5-15.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ralston JD, Revere D, Robins LS, Goldberg HI. Patients’ experience with a diabetes support program based on an interactive electronic medical record: qualitative study. British Medical Journal 2004; 328 7449 11-59.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Linder JA, Schnipper JL, Tsurikova R. Barriers to electronic health record use during patient visits. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006: 499-503.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Schellhase KG, Koepsell TD, Norris TE. Providers’ reactions to an automated health maintenance reminder system incorporated into the patient’s electronic medical record. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003; 16 (04) 312-317.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A. et al Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; 293 (10) 1197-203.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Burbeck S. Application Programming in Smalltalk-80: How to use Model-View-Controller (MVC). [Internet]. 1992. Available from http://st-www.cs.illinois.edu/users/smarch/st-docs/mvc.html.
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Cios KJ, Moore GW. Uniqueness of medical data mining. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 2002; 26: 1-24.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Martínez-Costa C, Tortosa MM, Fernández-Breis JT. An approach for the semantic interoperability of ISO EN 13606 and OpenEHR archetypes. Proceedings of Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2010: 736-746.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 EN13606 Association Board meeting protocol. 2011. Available from www.pangea.upv.es.en13606/images/docs/association/MinutesDublin201101.pdf.
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Gaithersburg MD. Common industry specification for usability requirements NISTIR 7432. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2007.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Peleg M. Sharable Appropriateness Criteria in GLIF3 Using Standards and the Knowledge-Data Ontology Mapper. Proceedings K4CARE. 2009: 64-75.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Seffah A, Donyaee M, Kline RB, Padda HK. Usability measurement and metrics: A consolidated model. Software Quality Journal 2006; 14: 159-178.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Manhas S, Vashisht R, Sandhu PS, Neeru N. Reusability Evaluation Model for Procedure Based Software Systems. International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering 2010; 2 (06) 1793-8163.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kohl CD, Garde S, Knaup P. Facilitating secondary use of medical data by using openEHR archetypes. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 160 (02) 1117-1121.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wang TD, Wongsuphasawat K, Plaisant C, Shneiderman B. Extracting Insights from Electronic Health Records: Case Studies, a Visual Analytics Process Model and Design Recommendations. J Med Syst 2011; 35 (05) 1135-1152. Epub 2011 May 4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wongsuphasawat K, Guerra Gómez J, Plaisant C, Wang TD, Taieb-Maimon M, Shneiderman B. LifeFlow: Visualizing an overview of event sequences. In: Proc of the 29th ACM Int Conf on Human Factors in Comp Syst. New York: 2011: 1747-1756.
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Plaisant P, Rose A. Exploring Lifelines to Visualize Patient records. Poster summary in 1996 American Medical Informatics Association Annual Fall Symposium Oct. 26–30, 1996. AMIA, Bethesda, MD: AMIA. 1996: 884
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Plaisant C, Shneiderman B, Mushlin R. An information architecture to support the visualization of personal histories. Information processing and management 1998; 34 (05) 581-597.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wang TD, Plaisant C, Quinn AJ, Stanchak R, Murphy S, Shneiderman B. Aligning temporal data by sentinel events: discovering patterns in electronic health records. CHI ’08: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 2008: 457-466.
    Google Scholar
  • 29 http://www.healthinfodesign.com/principles.htm (last accessed 22.06.2011).
    PubMed
  • 30 van der Linden H, Talmon J, Tange H, Grimson J, Hasman A. PropeR revisited. Int J Medical Inform 2005; 74 2–4 235-244.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 van der Linden H, Austinb T, Talmon J. Generic screen representations for future-proof systems, is it possible?. There is more to a GUI than meets the eye, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 2009; 95: 213-226.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 van der Linden H, Schuler T, Chen R, Talmon J. Generic screen representations for future proof systems-is it possible? Two-model approach to a generic GUI. Stud Health Technol Inform 2007; 129 Pt 2 1122-1126.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 van der Linden H, Kalra D, Hasman A, Talmon J. Inter-organizational future proof EHR systems. A review of the security and privacy related issues. Int J Med Inform 2009; 78 (03) 141-160.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Atalag K, Yang HY. From openEHR Domain Models to Advanced User Interfaces: A Case Study in Endoscopy. 2010 Health Informatics New Zealand Conference, Wellington, November 2–4. 2010.
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Atalag K, Yang HY, Tempero E, Warren J. Model driven development of clinical information sytems using openEHR. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011; 169: 849-853.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hanzlicek P, Spidlen J, Heroutova H, Nagy M. User interface of MUDR electronic health record. Int J Med Inform 2005; 74: 221-227.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hanzlicek P, Spidlen J Nagy. Universal electronic health record MUDR. MStud Health Technol Inform 2004; 105: 190-201.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Spidlen J, Hanzlícek P, Ríha A. Zvárová. Flexible information storage in MUDR(II) EHR. Int J Med Inform 2006; 75 3–4 201-208.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Garde S, Hovenga E, Buck J, Knaup P. Expressing Clinical Data Sets with openEHR Archetypes: A Solid Basis for Ubiquitous Computing. Int J Med Inform 2007; 76: S3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Beale T. Archetypes: Constraint-based domain models for future-proof information systems. In: Eleventh OOPSLA Workshop on Behavioral Semantics: Serving the Customer. Seattle, Washington, USA: Northeastern University; 2002: 16-32.
    Google Scholar
  • 41 ASTM E2369, Standard Specification for Continuity of Care Record (CCR).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Nygren E, Hendriksson P. Reading the medical record 1 and 2. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 1992: 1-39.
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Pyper C, Amery J, Watson M, Crook C. Access to Electronic health records in primary care - a survey of patients’ views. Best Paper Selection for: IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2006; Assessing Information Technologies for Health. Haux R, Kulikowski C. editors Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 Suppl (Suppl. 01) 41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Hö rbst A. Patient Empowerment by Electronic Health Records: First Results of a Systematic Review on the Benefit of Patient Portals. In Stoicu-Tivadar L, Blobel B, Marcun T, Orel A. (eds.) E-health Across Borders without Boundaries. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics Volume 165. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2011: 63-67.
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Pare G, Jaana M, Sicotte C. Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: the evidence base. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (03) 269-277.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Bird LJ, Goodchild A, Sue H. Describing Electronic Health Records Using XML Schema, XML Asia Pacific. 2000. Sydney, Australia:
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Rinner C, Janzek-Hawlat S, Sibinovic S, Duftschmid G. Semantic validation of standard based electronic health record documents with W3C XML Schema. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49 (03) 271-280.
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Hansen CD, Johnson C. Visualization Handbook. Academic Press; 2004.
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Aigner W, Miksch S, Schumann S, Tominski C. Visualization of Time-Oriented Data. Human-Computer Interaction Series. Springer: 2011.
    Google Scholar
  • 50 López DM, Blobel B. Architectural approaches for HL7-based health information systems implementation. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49 (02) 196-204. Epub 2010 Mar 8
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Hoerbst A, Ammenwerth E. Electronic health records. A systematic review on quality requirements. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49 (04) 320-336. Epub 2010 Jul 6
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12 (05) 505-516.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Bettencourt-Silva J, De La Iglesia B, Donell S, Rayward-Smith V. On Creating a Patient-centric Database from Multiple Hospital Information Systems. Methods Inf Med 2011; 50 (05) 210-220.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Klimov D, Shahar Y, Taieb-Maimon M. Intelligent interactive visual exploration of temporal associations among multiple time-oriented patient records. Methods Inf Med 2009; 48 (03) 254-262. Epub 2009 Apr 20
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 McKinlay A, McVittie C, Reiter E, Freer Y, Sykes C, Logie R. Design issues for socially intelligent user interfaces. A discourse analysis of a data-to-text system for summarizing clinical data. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49 (04) 379-387. Epub 2009 Dec 21
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar