Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2007; 46(06): 641-645
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1625422
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Implementing Software Development Guidelines in a Medical Informatics Research Project

L. Ißler
1   Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
,
C. Spreckelsen
2   Department of Medical Informatics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
,
C. Weßel
2   Department of Medical Informatics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 16 May 2006

Accepted: 05 September 2006

Publication Date:
12 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives : Due to the non-commercial, researchoriented context, software in medical informatics research projects is often developed by researchers as a proof-of-concept without applying structured software development process models. A guideline for software development can bring sufficient structure to the development process while avoiding the complexity of industry-standard methods.

Methods : We adapted the common evidence-based guideline development process from medicine to build a guideline for software development in our medical informatics teaching and research project.

Results : Our guideline development used the six steps of problem identification, first proposal, review, revision, gaining consensus and periodic guideline review. Since the developers had taken part in guideline development, our guideline clearly states the consensus of the development team over critical topics. The guideline improved the quality of our source code in structure and understandability.

Conclusions : A software development guideline that is developed following a consensus panel approach is a good instrument for basic software quality assurance in domains where complex, industry-standard software development methods cannot be applied. This is especially the case in non-commercial, research- oriented medical informatics projectswhere mainly non-software engineers like students do the development work.

Keywords

Software engineering - guidelines - medical informatics
 

  • References

  • 1. Weßel C, Spreckelsen C, Ißler L, Karakas G, Möller W, Palm S. et al. Die Qualitätsberichte der deutschen Krankenhäuser im Internet ab 2005: Erstellung mit Hilfe des objektorientierten Metamodells für Krankenhäuser MINERVA. In: Ammenwerth E, Gaus W, Haux R, Lovis C, Pfeiffer KP, Tilg B, et al., editors. Abstracts der 49. Jahrestagung der GMDS, 26.-30. September2004, Innsbruck. Niebüll: videel; 2004: 144-146. (In German.)
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2. Pape B, Bleek WG, Jackewitz I, Janneck M. Requirements for Project-Based Learning - CommSy as an Exemplary Approach. In: Sprague RH, editor. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos; 2002
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3. Kuhn KA, Lenz R, Elstner T, Siegele H, Moll R. Experiences with a generator tool for building clinical application modules. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (01) 37-44.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4. Nykänen P, Karimaa E. Success and Failure Factors in the Regional Health Information System Design Process - Results from a Constructive Evaluation Study. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45: 85-89.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5. Jacobson I, Booch G, Rumbaugh J. The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley; 1999
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6. Ammenwerth E, Shaw NT. Bad Health Informatics Can Kill - Is Evaluation the Answer?. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44 (01) 1-3.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7. International Organization for Standardization.. ISO/IEC 9126 Software engineering - Product quality-Part 1: Quality model; 2001
    PubMed
  • 8. Field MJ, Lohr KN. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for anew program. Washington: National Academy Press; 1990
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: Developing guidelines. British Medical Journal 1999; 318 (593) 6.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10. Feder G, Eccles M, Grol R, Griffiths C, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: Using clinical guidelines. British Medical Journal 1999; 318: 728-730.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11. Michie S, Johnston M. Changing clinical behaviour by making guidelines specific. British Medical Journal 2004; 328: 343-345.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12. Council of Europe.. Developing amethodologyfor drawing up guidelines on best medical practices (Recommendation (2001) and explanatory memorandum). Council of Europe; 2002
    PubMed
  • 13. Greif N, Schrepf H. Information Technology Guidelines for Software Development: Guideline for Programming in C. Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt.. Bonn; 2002
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14. Sun Microsystems.. Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language: Revised April 20,1999. Sun Microsystems; 1999
    PubMed
  • 15. Chisholm W, Vanderheiden G, Jacobs I. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. World Wide Web Consortium; 1999
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16. Federal Republic of Germany.. V-Model 97, Lifecycle Process Model - Developing Standard for IT Systems of the Federal Republic of Germany: General Directive No. 250. Federal Republic of Germany; 1997
    PubMed
  • 17. Averill E. Reference models and standards. Standard View 1994; 2 (02) 96-109.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology ANSI/IEEE Standard 610.12-1990; 1990
    PubMed
  • 19. McAlearney AS, Schweikhart SB, Medow MA. Doctors’ experience with handheld computers in clinical practice: qualitative study. British Medical Journal 2004; 328 7449 1162.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20. Smith AC. Design and Conduct of Subjectivist Studies. In: Friedman C, Wyatt J, editors. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. Springer; 1997: 223-253.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21. Coreil J. Group interviewmethods in community health research. Med Anthropol 1995; 16: 193-210.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22. Bradner S. Request for Comments: 2119. Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels.. Network Working Group; 1997
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23. Reddy M, Pratt W, Dourish P, Shabot MM. Sociotechnical Requirements Analysis for Clinical Systems. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42: 437-444.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24. Hartswood MJ, Procter RN, Rouchy P, Rounce-field M, Slack R, Voss A. Working IT Out in Medical Practice: IT Systems Design and Development as Co-Realisation. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42: 392-397.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25. Kaplan B, Shaw NT. Future Directions in Evaluation Research: People, Organizational, and Social Issues. Methods InfMed 2004; 43: 215-231.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26. Ißler L, Becker N, Spreckelsen C, Weßel C. The CERES Project-CERES Software Development Guidelines. Aachener Schriften zur Medizinischen Informatik 2007; 1. Obtainable via http://publikationen.med-informatik.ukaachen.de/
    PubMed