Analysis and Design of an Ontology for Intensive Care Diagnoses

Abstract

Information about the patient‘s health status and about medical problems in general, play an important role in stratifying a patient population for quality assurance of intensive care. A terminological system which supports both the description of health problems for daily care practice and the aggregation of diagnostic information for evaluative research, is desirable for description of the patient population. This study describes the engineering of an ontology that facilitates a terminological system for intensive care diagnoses. We analyzed the criteria for such an ontology and evaluated existing terminological systems according to these criteria. The analysis shows that none of the existing terminological systems completely satisfies all our criteria. We describe choices regarding design, content and representation of a new ontology on which an adequate terminological system is based. The proposed ontology is characterized by the explicit and formal representation of the domain model, the metaspecification of its concepts, the vocabulary to define concepts and the nomenclature to support the composition of new concepts.

Keywords

Ontology - Conceptual Modeling - Terminological System - Nomenclature - Intensive Care - Diagnosis

• References

• 1 Keenan S, Doig G, Martin C, Inman KWJS. Assessing the efficiency of the admission process to a critical care unit: does the literature allow the use of benchmarking. Intensive Care Med 1997; 23: 574-80.
• 2 Relman A. Assessment and accountability. The third revolution in medical care. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1220-2.
• 3 ICNARC Case Mix Programme Dataset Specifications. London: ICNARC; 1996
• 4 Nelson L. Data, data everywhere (editorial comment). Crit Care Med 1997; 25 (Suppl. 08) 1265.
• 5 Apolone G, Bertolini G, D’Amico R. et al. The performance of the SAPS II on a cohort of patients admitted to 99 Italian ICUs: results from GiViTi. Gruppo Italiano per la Valutazione degli interventi in Terapia Intensiva. Int Care Med 1996; 22 (Suppl. 12) 1368-78.
• 6 DeKeizer N, Bouman R, Joode J. Anatomical Quality Assurance System (in Dutch). Medisch Contact 1999; 54: 276-9.
• 7 Knaus W, Draper E, Wagner D, Zimmerman J. APACHE II: A severity of disease classification. Crit Care Med 1985; 10: 818-29.
• 8 Knaus W, Wagner D, Draper E, Zimmerman J, Bergner M, Bastos P. The APACHE III Prognostic System. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest 1991; 100: 1619-36.
• 9 Le Gall J, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 1993; 24: 2957-63.
• 10 Lemeshow S, Teres D, Klar J, Avrunin J, Gehlbach S, Rapoport J. Mortality Probability Models (MPM II) based on an international cohort of intensive care unit patients. JAMA 1993; 20: 2478-86.
• 11 Gonella J, Hornbrook M, Louis D. Staging of diseases: A case mix measurement. JAMA 1984; 251 (Suppl. 05) 637-44.
• 12 Fetter R, Skin Y, Freeman J, Averill R, Thompson J. Case Mix Definition by DRG. Medical Care. 1980: XVIII.
• 13 Milholland D. Information systems in critical care: a measure of their effectiveness. In: Greenes R, Peterson H, Protti D. eds. Medinfo. Healthcare Computing & Communication. Canada: 1995: 1068-70.
• 14 Grobe J. Editorial comments: Informatics: The infrastructure for quality assessment and quality improvement. J AM Med Informatics Assoc 1995; 2: 267-8.
• 15 Zielstorff R. Capturing and using clinical outcome data: implications for information systems design. J AM Med Informatics Assoc 1995; 2: 191-6.
• 16 Gruber T. Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Intern J Human-Comput Stud 1995; 43: 907-28.
• 17 European prestandard.. Medical informatics – Categorical structures of systems of concepts – Model for representation of semantics. Brussel: CEN; 1997
• 18 de Keizer N, Stoutenbeek C, Hanneman L, de Jonge E. A PDMS evaluation in Dutch intensive care. Intensive Care Med 1998; 24: 167-71.
• 19 Cimino J, Clayton P, Hripcsak G, Johnson S. Knowledge-based approaches to the maintenance of a large controlled medical terminology. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 1994; 1: 35-50.
• 20 Campbell J, Carpenter P, Sneiderman C. et al. Phase II evaluation of clinical coding schemes: completeness, definitions and clarity. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 1997; 4: 238-51.
• 21 International Classification of Diseases, manual of the International Statistical Classification of diseases, injuries and causes of death: 9th revision. WHO. 1977
• 22 International Classification of Diseases, manual of the International Statistical Classification of diseases, injuries and causes of death: 10th revision. WHO. 1993
• 23 Read J, Sanderson H, Drennan Y. Terming, coding and grouping. In: RAG, ed. Medinfo 95. 1995: 56-9.
• 24 Rothwell D. SNOMED-Based knowledge representation. Meth Inform Med 1995; 34: 209-13.
• 25 Lindberg D, Humphreys B, Mc Cray A. The Unified Medical Language System. Meth Inform Med 1993; 34: 281-91.
• 26 Rector A, Solomon W, Nowlan W, Rush T, Zanstra P, Claassen W. A Terminology Server for medical language and medical information systems. Meth Inform Med 1995; 34: 147-57.
• 27 Rector A, Glowinski A, Nowlan W, Rossi-Mori A. Medical-concept models and medical records: an approach based on GALEN and PEN & PAD. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1995; 2: 19-35.
• 28 Rector A, Bechhofer S, Goble C, Horrocks I, Nowlan W, Solomon W. The Grail concept modelling language for medical terminology. Artif Intell 1997; 9: 139-71.
• 29 Chen P. The Entity-Relationship model; toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans on Database Systems; 1966
• 30 Campbell K, Das A, Musen M. A logical foundation for representation of clinical data. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 1994; 1: 218-32.
• 31 Rumbaugh J. et al. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall; 1991
• 32 Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I. Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley; 1998
• 33 Sowa J. Conceptual structures. Addison-Wesley; 1984. Reading M. ed.
• 34 Gruber T. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 1993; 5: 199-220.
• 35 Dutch Classification and Terminology Committee for Health.. Handbook Standardisation of Classification and Definitions in Health Care. Zoetermeer: WCC; 1990
• 36 Abu-Hanna A, Jansweijer W. Modeling application domain knowledge using explicit conceptualization. IEEE-Expert; 1994
• 37 Heijst G, Falasconi S, Abu-Hanna A, Schreiber A, Stefanelli M. A case study in ontology library construction. Art Intell, Med 1995; 7: 227-55.
• 38 Tu S, Eriksson H, Gennari J, Shahar Y, Musen M. Ontology-based configuration of problem-solving methods and generation of knowledge acquisition tools: the application of PROTEGE-II to protocol-based desicion support. Art Intell Med 1995; 7: 257-90.
• 39 Campbell K, Musen M. Representation of Clinical Data Using SNOMED III and conceptual graphs. In: MEF, ed. SCAMC: McGraw Hill; 1992: 354-8.
• 40 Rothwell D, Coté R. Managing Information with SNOMED: Understanding the model. SCAMC; 1996: 80-3.
• 41 Wieringa R. Requirements engineering. Framework for understanding. John Wiley & Sons; 1996