CBR and MBR techniques: review for an application in the emergencies domain

The purpose of this document is to provide an in-depth analysis of current reasoning engine practice and the integration strategies of Case Based Reasoning and Model Based Reasoning that will be used in the design and development of the RIMSAT system. RIMSAT (Remote Intelligent Management Support and Training) is a European Commission funded project designed to: a.. Provide an innovative, 'intelligent', knowledge based solution aimed at improving the quality of critical decisions b.. Enhance the competencies and responsiveness of individuals and organisations involved in highly complex, safety critical incidents - irrespective of their location. In other words, RIMSAT aims to design and implement a decision support system that using Case Base Reasoning as well as Model Base Reasoning technology is applied in the management of emergency situations. This document is part of a deliverable for RIMSAT project, and although it has been done in close contact with the requirements of the project, it provides an overview wide enough for providing a state of the art in integration strategies between CBR and MBR technologies.Postprint (published version

Using Diagnostic Decision Support Systems to Reduce Diagnostic Error: A Survey of Critical Care Physicians

The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of decisions support systems (DSS) by critical care physicians and to address the following questions: Does the use of a decision support system during diagnosis reduce diagnostic error and how are decision support systems used by critical care physicians? There are no studies that address these research questions in a clinical setting. The information assessment method (IAM) was used to guide the development of the survey questions. Critical care physicians from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center were surveyed. Chi squared test for independence was used to determine the relationship between DSS use and diagnostic error rates. There were three main findings of the study: (1) use of a DSS by a critical care physician can decrease diagnostic error by up to 60%; (2) 56% of critical care physicians are using a DSS during diagnosis to learn something new, confirm something they already knew, and/or to reassure themselves; and (3) the increased use of a DSS by critical care physicians can lead to a decrease in the belief of the ability of a DSS to reduce diagnostic error.NoMax Chambers Librar

Organizational diagnosis in practice : a cross-classification analysis using the DEL-technique

This paper investigates asymmetric effects of monetary policy over the business cycle. A two-state Markov Switching Model is employed to model both recessions and expansions. For the United States and Germany, strong evidence is found that monetary policy is more effective in a recession than during a boom. Also some evidence is found for asymmetry in the United Kingdom and Belgium. In the Netherlands, monetary policy is not very effective in either regime.

The impact of a diagnostic decision support system on the consultation: perceptions of GPs and patients

Background Clinical decision support systems (DSS) aimed at supporting diagnosis are not widely used. This is mainly due to usability issues and lack of integration into clinical work and the electronic health record (EHR). In this study we examined the usability and acceptability of a diagnostic DSS prototype integrated with the EHR and in comparison with the EHR alone. Methods Thirty-four General Practitioners (GPs) consulted with 6 standardised patients (SPs) using only their EHR system (baseline session); on another day, they consulted with 6 different but matched for difficulty SPs, using the EHR with the integrated DSS prototype (DSS session). GPs were interviewed twice (at the end of each session), and completed the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire at the end of the DSS session. The SPs completed the Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire after each consultation. Results The majority of GPs (74%) found the DSS useful: it helped them consider more diagnoses and ask more targeted questions. They considered three user interface features to be the most useful: (1) integration with the EHR; (2) suggested diagnoses to consider at the start of the consultation and; (3) the checklist of symptoms and signs in relation to each suggested diagnosis. There were also criticisms: half of the GPs felt that the DSS changed their consultation style, by requiring them to code symptoms and signs while interacting with the patient. SPs sometimes commented that GPs were looking at their computer more than at them; this comment was made more often in the DSS session (15%) than in the baseline session (3%). Nevertheless, SP ratings on the satisfaction questionnaire did not differ between the two sessions. Conclusions To use the DSS effectively, GPs would need to adapt their consultation style, so that they code more information during rather than at the end of the consultation. This presents a potential barrier to adoption. Training GPs to use the system in a patient-centred way, as well as improvement of the DSS interface itself, could facilitate coding. To enhance patient acceptability, patients should be informed about the potential of the DSS to improve diagnostic accuracy

Decision support systems for adoption in dental clinics: a survey

While most dental clinicians use some sort of information system, they are involved with administrative functions, despite the advisory potential of some of these systems. This paper outlines some current decision support systems (DSS) and the common barriers facing dentists in adopting them within their workflow. These barriers include lack of perceived usefulness, complicated social and economic factors, and the difficulty for users to interpret the advice given by the system. A survey of current systems found that although there are systems that suggest treatment options, there is no real-time integration with other knowledge bases. Additionally, advice on drug prescription at point-of-care is absent from such systems, which is a significant omission, in consideration of the fact that disease management and drug prescription are common in the workflow of a dentist. This paper also addresses future trends in the research and development of dental clinical DSS, with specific emphasis on big data, standards and privacy issues to fulfil the vision of a robust, user-friendly and scalable personalised DSS for dentists. The findings of this study will offer strategies in design, research and development of a DSS with sufficient perceived usefulness to attract adoption and integration by dentists within their routine clinical workflow, thus resulting in better health outcomes for patients and increased productivity for the clinic

Automation bias and prescribing decision support – rates, mediators and mitigators

Purpose: Computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are implemented within healthcare settings as a method to improve clinical decision quality, safety and effectiveness, and ultimately patient outcomes. Though CDSSs tend to improve practitioner performance and clinical outcomes, relatively little is known about specific impact of inaccurate CDSS output on clinicians. Although there is high heterogeneity between CDSS types and studies, reviews of the ability of CDSS to prevent medication errors through incorrect decisions have generally been consistently positive, working by improving clinical judgement and decision making. However, it is known that the occasional incorrect advice given may tempt users to reverse a correct decision, and thus introduce new errors. These systematic errors can stem from Automation Bias (AB), an effect which has had little investigation within the healthcare field, where users have a tendency to use automated advice heuristically. Research is required to assess the rate of AB, identify factors and situations involved in overreliance and propose says to mitigate risk and refine the appropriate usage of CDSS; this can provide information to promote awareness of the effect, and ensure the maximisation of the impact of benefits gained from the implementation of CDSS. Background: A broader literature review was carried out coupled with a systematic review of studies investigating the impact of automated decision support on user decisions over various clinical and non-clinical domains. This aimed to identify gaps in the literature and build an evidence-based model of reliance on Decision Support Systems (DSS), particularly a bias towards over-using automation. The literature review and systematic review revealed a number of postulates - that CDSS are socio-technical systems, and that factors involved in CDSS misuse can vary from overarching social or cultural factors, individual cognitive variables to more specific technology design issues. However, the systematic review revealed there is a paucity of deliberate empirical evidence for this effect. The reviews identified the variables involved in automation bias to develop a conceptual model of overreliance, the initial development of an ontology for AB, and ultimately inform an empirical study to investigate persuasive potential factors involved: task difficulty, time pressure, CDSS trust, decision confidence, CDSS experience and clinical experience. The domain of primary care prescribing was chosen within which to carry out an empirical study, due to the evidence supporting CDSS usefulness in prescribing, and the high rate of prescribing error. Empirical Study Methodology: Twenty simulated prescribing scenarios with associated correct and incorrect answers were developed and validated by prescribing experts. An online Clinical Decision Support Simulator was used to display scenarios to users. NHS General Practitioners (GPs) were contacted via emails through associates of the Centre for Health Informatics, and through a healthcare mailing list company. Twenty-six GPs participated in the empirical study. The study was designed so each participant viewed and gave prescriptions for 20 prescribing scenarios, 10 coded as “hard” and 10 coded as “medium” prescribing scenarios (N = 520 prescribing cases were answered overall). Scenarios were accompanied by correct advice 70% of the time, and incorrect advice 30% of the time (in equal proportions in either task difficulty condition). Both the order of scenario presentation and the correct/incorrect nature of advice were randomised to prevent order effects. The planned time pressure condition was dropped due to low response rate. Results: To compare with previous literature which took overall decisions into account, taking individual cases into account (N=520), the pre advice accuracy rate of the clinicians was 50.4%, which improved to 58.3% post advice. The CDSS improved the decision accuracy in 13.1% of prescribing cases. The rate of AB, as measured by decision switches from correct pre advice, to incorrect post advice was 5.2% of all cases at a CDSS accuracy rate of 70% - leading to a net improvement of 8%. However, the above by-case type of analysis may not enable generalisation of results (but illustrates rates in this specific situation); individual participant differences must be taken into account. By participant (N = 26) when advice was correct, decisions were more likely to be switched to a correct prescription, when advice was incorrect decisions were more likely to be switched to an incorrect prescription. There was a significant correlation between decision switching and AB error. By participant, more immediate factors such as trust in the specific CDSS, decision confidence, and task difficulty influenced rate of decision switching. Lower clinical experience was associated with more decision switching (but not higher AB rate). The rate of AB was somewhat problematic to analyse due to low number of instances – the effect could potentially have been greater. The between subjects effect of time pressure could not be investigated due to low response rate. Age, DSS experience and trust in CDSS generally were not significantly associated with decision switching. Conclusion: There is a gap in the current literature investigating inappropriate CDSS use, but the general literature supports an interactive multi-factorial aetiology for automation misuse. Automation bias is a consistent effect with various potential direct and indirect causal factors. It may be mitigated by altering advice characteristics to aid clinicians’ awareness of advice correctness and support their own informed judgement – this needs further empirical investigation. Users’ own clinical judgement must always be maintained, and systems should not be followed unquestioningly

The Effect of Age and Advice Accuracy on Compliance with Decision Support

This thesis was designed to determine whether age or the accuracy of advice provided significantly effects compliance with a computerized decision support assistant. 48 participants in two groups, aged 20-40 (younger adults) and 41-69 (older adults), performed a monitoring/vigilance task intended to be similar to screening baggage with an X-ray monitor. A decision support assistant was provided to assist participants in choosing one out of four gray circles that had the most contrast with the background screen. Compliance with the decision support assistant\u27s advice was then assessed. Results indicated that the level of advice accuracy did have a significant effect on compliance with decision support. As the advice accuracy level decreased, compliance decreased for both age groups. Although previous literature indicates that older adults may have negative attitudes toward computers, no significance was found for age or the interaction effect of age and advice accuracy on compliance with decision support technology