A Generic Model of Clinical Practice

Summary

Objectives: Many shared-care projects feel the need for electronic patient-record (EPR) systems. In absence of practical experiences from paper record keeping, a theoretical model is the only reference for the design of these systems. In this article, we review existing models of individual clinical practice and integrate their useful elements. We then present a generic model of clinical practice that is applicable to both individual and collaborative clinical practice.

Methods: We followed the principles of the conversation-for-action theory and the DEMO method. According to these principles, information can only be generated by a conversation between two actors. An actor is a role that can be played by one or more human subjects, so the model does not distinguish between inter-individual and intra-individual conversations.

Results: Clinical practice has been divided into four actors: service provider, problem solver, coordinator, and worker. Each actor represents a level of clinical responsibility. Any information in the patient record is the result of a conversation between two of these actors. Connecting different conversations to one another can create a process view with meta-information about the rationale of clinical practice. Such process view can be implemented as an extension to the EPR.

Conclusions: The model has the potential to cover all professional activities, but needs to be further validated. The model can serve as a theoretical basis for the design of EPR-systems for shared care, but a successful EPR-system needs more than just a theoretical model.

Keywords

Electronic-medical-record - shared-medical-care - clinical-reasoning - communication - process-model

• References

• 1 McDonald CJ, Barnett GO. Medical-record systems. In: Shortliffe EH, Perreault LE. editors. Medical Informatics - Computer Applications in Health Care. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley; 1990: 181-218.
• 2 Hampson JP, Roberts RI, Morgan DA. Shared care: a review of the literature. Fam Prac 1996; 13: 264-79.
• 3 Orton P. Shared care. Lancet 1994; 344: 1413-5.
• 4 Dick RS, Steen EB. editors. The computer-based patient record – an essential technology for health care. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1991
• 5 Weed LL. Medical records, medical education, and patient care. 6 ed. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc.; 1969
• 6 Elstein AS, Shulman LS, Sprafka SA. Medical problem solving: an analysis of clinical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978
• 7 Rector AL, Nowlan WA, Kay S. Foundations for an electronic medical record. Methods Inf Med 1991; 30 (Suppl. 03) 179-86.
• 8 Dietz JLG. Modelling business processes for the purpose of redesign. In: Glasson BC. et al., editors. Business process re-engineering: information systems opportunities and challenges. Elsevier Sciences; 1994
• 9 Winograd T, Flores FM. Understanding computers and cognition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1986
• 10 Weed LL. Medical records that guide and teach. N Engl J Med 1968; 278: 593-600 652-7.
• 11 Weed LL. Quality control and the medical record. Arch Intern Med 1971; 127: 101-5.
• 12 Goldfinger SE. The problem-oriented record: a critique from a believer. N Engl J Med 1973; 288 (Suppl. 12) 606-8.
• 13 Feinstein AR. The problems of the »Problem-Oriented Medical Record«. Ann Intern Med 1973; 78: 751-62.
• 14 Donnelly WJ, Hines E, Brauner DJ. Why SOAP is bad for the medical record. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 481-4.
• 15 Feinstein AR. Quality of data in the medical record. Comput Biomed Res 1970; 3 (Suppl. 05) 426-35.
• 16 van der Lei J, Duisterhout JS, Westerhof HP, van der Does E, Cromme PV, Boon WM. et al. The introduction of computer-based patient records in The Netherlands. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119: 1036-41.
• 17 de Vries Robbé PF, Stuyt PMJ, van der Meer JWM. [Onderwijs in methodisch denken in de praktische geneeskunde] (in Dutch). In: Metz JCM, Scherpbier AJJA, van der Vleuten CPM. editors. Medisch onderwijs in de praktijk. Assen, NL: Van Gorkum; 1995: 58-68.
• 18 Berg M. The construction of medical disposals -Medical sociology and medical problem solving in clinical practice. Sociol Health & Illness 1992; 13: 151-80.
• 19 Dietz JLG. The essential system model. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences. Springer; 1991
• 20 Dorland’s illustrated medical dictionary. 26^th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1981
• 21 Tange HJ. How to approach the structuring of the medical record? Towards a model for flexible access to free-text medical data. Int J Biomed Comput 1996; 42: 27-34.
• 22 Barrows Jr RC, Johnson SB. A data model that captures clinical reasoning about patient problems. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995: 402-5.
• 23 Poon AD, Fagan LM, Shortliffe EH. The PEN-Ivory project: Exploring user-interface design for the selection of items from large controlled vocabularies in medicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; 3: 168-183.
• 24 van Ginneken AM, Stam H. Can one patient record accommodate the diversity of specialized care?. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995: 406-10.
• 25 Assimacopoulos A, Borgazzi A. An electronic patient record combining free text and coded nomenclature: application to nursing process. In: Lun KC, Degoulet P, Piemme TE, Rienhoff O. editors. Proc Medinfo’92; 1992. North-Holland: 1992: 746-50.
• 26 Trace D, Naeymi Rad F, Haines D, Robert JJ, deSouza Almeida F, Carmony L. et al. Intelligent Medical Record—entry (IMR-E). J Med Syst 1993; 17 3-4 139-51.
• 27 Frisse ME, Schnase JL, Metcalfe ES. Models for patient records. Acad Med 1994; 69 (Suppl. 07) 546-50.
• 28 van der Lei J. Use and abuse of computer-stored medical records. Methods Inf Med 1991; 30 (Suppl. 02) 79-80.
• 29 Wyatt JC. Clinical data systems, Part 1: Data and medical records. Lancet 1994; 344 8936 1543-7.
• 30 Kluge EHW. The medical record: narration and story as a path through patient data [editorial]. Methods Inf Med 1996; 35: 88-92.
• 31 -HL7 Reference Information Model (Version V 01-07) Health Level Seven, Inc; 2001
• 32 CEN-TC251/WG1. Health Informatics: Electronic Healthcare Record Communication -Part 2: Domain Termlist. ENV 13606-2.Appendix C 1999
• 33 Clinical Observations Access Service (COAS) specification (Version 1.0). Needham MA, USA: Object Management Group, Inc; 2001
• 34 Simon HA. The New Science of management decisions. New York: Harper and Brothers; 1960
• 35 Maij E, Poerschke M, Kalshoven M, ZwetslootSchonk JHM. Procesmodellen en use cases als basis voor zorgvuldige component-selectie [in Dutch]. In: Proc Medische Informatica Congres; 2000: 15-26.
• 36 OMG Unified Modeling Language specification (Version 1.4). Needham MA, USA: Object Management Group, Inc; 2001
• 37 Hunter DJ, Fairfield G. Disease management. BMJ 1997; 315: 50-3.
• 38 Coffey RJ, Richards JS, Remmert CS. e.a. An introduction to critical paths. Quality Management in Health Care 1992; 1 (Suppl. 01) 45-54.
• 39 Taylor C. Clinical problem-solving in nursing: insights from the literature. J Adv Nursing 2000; 31: 842-9.