Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2005; 44(01): 14-24
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1633918
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Design and Development of a Mobile System for Supporting Emergency Triage

W. Michalowski
1   School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
,
R. Slowinski
2   Institute of Computing Science, Poznan Technical University, Poznan, Poland
,
S. Wilk
2   Institute of Computing Science, Poznan Technical University, Poznan, Poland
,
K. J. Farion
3   Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
,
J. Pike
3   Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
,
S. Rubin
3   Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 04 March 2004

accepted: 13 October 2004

Publication Date:
06 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: Our objective was to design and develop a mobile clinical decision support system for emergency triage of different acute pain presentations. The system should interact with existing hospital information systems, run on mobile computing devices (handheld computers) and be suitable for operation in weak-connectivity conditions (with unstable connections between mobile clients and a server).

Methods: The MET (Mobile Emergency Triage) system was designed following an extended client-server architecture. The client component, responsible for triage decision support, is built as a knowledge-based system, with domain ontology separated from generic problem solving methods and used for the automatic creation of a user interface.

Results: The MET system is well suited for operation in the Emergency Department of a hospital. The system’s external interactions are managed by the server, while the MET clients, running on handheld computers are used by clinicians for collecting clinical data and supporting triage at the bedside. The functionality of the MET client is distributed into specialized modules, responsible for triaging specific types of acute pain presentations. The modules are stored on the server, and on request they can be transferred and executed on the mobile clients. The modular design provides for easy extension of the system’s functionality. A clinical trial of the MET system validated the appropriateness of the system’s design, and proved the usefulness and acceptance of the system in clinical practice.

Conclusions: The MET system captures the necessary hospital data, allows for entry of patient information, and provides triage support. By operating on handheld computers, it fits into the regular emergency department workflow without introducing any hindrances or disruptions. It supports triage anytime and anywhere, directly at the point of care, and also can be used as an electronic patient chart, facilitating structured data collection.

Keywords

Clinical decision support systems - triage - handheld computers - hospital emergency service
 

  • References

  • 1 Musen MA, Shahar Y, Shortliffe EH. Clinical decision support systems. In. Shortliffe EH, Perreault LE, Wiederhold G, Fagan LM. editors. Medical Informatics. Computer Applications in Health Care and Biomedicine. 2nd ed. Springer- Verlag: 2001: 573-609.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Shortliffe EH. The adolescence of AI in medicine: Will the field come of age in the 90’s?. Artif Intell Med 1993; 5: 93-106.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Séroussi B, Bouaud J, Antoine ÉC. Oncodoc: a successful experiment of computer-supported guideline development and implementation in the treatment of breast cancer. Artif Intell Med 2001; 22: 43-64.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hanson 3rd CW, Marshall BE. Artificial intelligence applications in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2001; 29 (02) 427-35.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Anderson JG. Clearing the way for physicians’ use of clinical information systems. Commun ACM 1997; 40 (08) 83-90.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 de Dombal FT, Leaper DJ, Staniland JR, McCann AP, Horrocks JC. Computer-aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. Br Med J 1972; 2 5804 9-13.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: A systematic review. JAMA 1998; 280 (15) 1339-46.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kinney WC. Web-based clinical decision support system for triage of vestibular patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 128 (01) 48-53.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gertner AS, Webber BL. Traumatiq: online decision support for trauma management. IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 1998; 13 (01) 32-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Daou Systems Inc. Going mobile: from ehealth to mhealth. A Daou Systems white paper. 2001. Available from. http://www.daou.com/emerging/pdf/mHealth_White_Paper_April_2001.PDF Accessed March 25 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tachakra S, Wang XH, Istepanian RS, Song YH. Mobile e-health: the unwired evolution of telemedicine. Telemed J E Health 2003; 9 (03) 247-57.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ammenwerth E, Buchauer A, Bludau B, Haux R. Mobile information and communication tools in the hospital. Int J Med Inf 2000; 57 (01) 21-40.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fischer S, Stewart TE, Mehta S, Wax R, Lapinsky SE. Handheld computing in medicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10 (02) 139-49.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Roth AC, Leon MA, Milner SM, Herting Jr. RL, Hahn AW. A personal digital assistant for determination of fluid needs for burn patients. Biomed Sci Instrum 1997; 34: 186-90.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zupan B, Porenta A, Vidmar G, Aoki N, Bratko I, Beck JR. Decisions at hand: a decision support system on handhelds. Medinfo 2001; 10: 566-70.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Michalowski W, Rubin S, Slowinski R, Wilk S. Mobile clinical support system for pediatric emergencies. Journal of Decision Support Systems 2003; 36 (02) 161-76.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ramnarayan P, Britto J. Paediatric clinical decision support systems. Arch Dis Child 2002; 87 (05) 361-2.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Brown DS, Motte S. Device design methodology for trauma applications. In. Karat CM, Lund A, Coutaz J, Karat J. editors Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 98);1998. Los Angeles, USA. New York: ACM; 1998: 590-94.
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Shiffman RN, Karras BT. Pen-based, mobile decision support in healthcare. ACM SIGBIO Newsletter 1999; 19 (02) 5-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Essex D. Wow! Wireless works!! Healthc Inform. 1999; 16 (10) 38-42. 44,46.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jing J, Helal AS, Elmagarmid A. Client-server computing in mobile environments. ACM Computing Surveys 1999; 31 (02) 117-57.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rae F. The Ottawa ankle rule. J Emerg Med 2001; 18 (02) 147.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Michalowski W, Rubin S, Slowinski R, Wilk S. Triage of acute abdominal paIn clinical use of a palm handheld in a pediatric emergency department. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’04);2004. Big Island, Hawaii. Los Alamitos: IEEE; 2004: 60161a.
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Berner ES, Ball MJ, Hannah KJ. editors Clinical Decision Support Systems: Theory and Practice. New York: Springer Verlag; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Musen MA. Domain ontologies in software engineering: use of Protégé with the EON architecture. Method Inform Med 1998; 37 4-5 540-50.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Musen MA. Scalable software architectures for decision support. Method Inform Med 1999; 38 4-5 229-38.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Steel L. Second generation expert systems. Future Generation Computer Systems 1985; 1 (04) 213-21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Puppe B, Ohmann C, Goos K, Puppe F, Mootz O. Evaluating four diagnostic methods with acute abdominal pain cases. Method Inform Med 1995; 34 (04) 361-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pawlak Z, Slowinski R. Rough set approach to multi-attribute decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 1994; 72: 443-59.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Slowinski R. Rough sets approach to decision analysis. AI Expert Magazine 1995; 10: 8-25.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Stefanowski J. On rough set based approaches to induction of decision rules. In. Skowron A, Polkowski L. editors. Rough Sets in Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag; 1998: 500-29.
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Stefanowski J. Rough set based rule induction techniques for classification problems. In. Zimmermann HJ. editor Proceedings of the 6th European Congress on Intelligent Techniques and Soft Computing (EUFIT’98);1998. Aachen, Germany: Mainz Verlag; 1998: 109-13.
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R. Dealing with missing data in rough set analysis of multi-attribute and multi-criteria decision problems. In. Zanakis SH, Doukidis G, Zopounidis C. editors. Decision Making: Recent Developments and Worldwide Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000: 295-316.
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Stefanowski J. Classification support based on the rough sets. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 1993; 18 3-4 371-80.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Wilk S, Slowinski R, Michalowski W, Greco S. Supporting triage of children with abdominal pain in the emergency room. Eur J Oper Res 2005; 160 (03) 696-709.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Eriksson H, Puerta AR, Musen MA. Generation of knowledge-acquisition tools from domain ontologies. Int J Hum Comput Stud 1994; 41 (03) 425-53.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Johnson J. Selectors: Going beyond user-interface widgets. In. Bauersfeld P, Bennett J, Lynch G. editors Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 92);1992. Monterey, USA. New York: ACM; 1992: 273-9.
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Gennari JH, Musen MA, Fergerson RW, Grosso WE, Crubezy M, Eriksson H. et al. The evolution of Protégé: an environment for knowledge-based systems development. Int J Hum Comput Stud 2003; 58 (01) 89-123.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Michalowski W, Kersten M, Wilk S, Slowinski R. Designing man-machine interactions for mobile clinical systems: MET triage support using Palm handhelds. Eur J Oper Res 2005 (in press).
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Rector AL, Horan B, Fitter M, Kay S, Newton PD, Nowlan WA. et al. User centered development of a general practice medical workstation: The PEN&PAD experience. In. Bauersfeld P, Bennett J, Lynch G. editors Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 92);1992. Monterey, USA. New York: ACM; 1992: 447-53.
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Raskin J. The Human Interface. New York: Addison Wesley; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Sittig DF, Kuperman GJ, Fiskio J. Evaluating physician satisfaction regarding user interactions with an electronic medical record system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 400-4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Ostrem J, Palm OS. ® user interface guidelines. 2003. Available from. http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/docs/uiguidelines.pdf Accessed June 15 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Korner H, Sondenaa K, Soreide JA, Andersen E, Nysted A, Lende TH. Structured data collection improves the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 1998; 85 (03) 341-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Guerlain S, Le Beau K, Thompson M, Donnelly C, McClelland H, Syverud S. et al. The effect of a standardized data collection form on the examination and diagnosis of patients with abdominal pain. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting;2001. Minneapolis, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2001: 1284-9.
    Google Scholar
  • 46 de Dombal FT. Computer-aided decision support in clinical medicine. Int J Biomed Comput 1989; 24 (01) 9-16.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Satyanarayanan M. Fundamental challenges of mobile computing. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC’95);1995. Ottawa, Canada: ACM; 1995: 1-7.
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Quinn J. An HL7 (Health Level Seven) overview. J AHIMA 1999; 70 (07) 32-4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 SNOMED International. SNOMED Clinical Terms. 2004. Available from. http://www.snomed.org/snomedct Accessed June 16 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 WHO Statistical Information System. IDC-10. The international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, tenth revision. Available from. http://www.who.int/whosis/icd10/ Accessed August 4 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Regenstrief Institute Inc. Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes. Available from. http://www.loinc.org/ Accessed August 4 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 IETF: The Internet Engineering Task Force. TSL: Transport Layer Security. Available from. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/tls-charter.html Accessed June 17 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Sutton GC. Computer-aided diagnosis: A review. Br J Surg 1989; 76 (01) 82-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar