Supporting Medical Planning by Mitigating Cognitive Load

Summary

Objectives : Developing a care plan for a patient is a complex task, requiring an understanding of interactions and dependencies between procedures and of their possible outcomes for an individual patient. Decision support for planning has broader requirements than are typically considered in medical informatics applications. We consider the appropriate design of software to assist medical planning.

Methods : The likely cognitive loads imposed by planning tasks were assessed with a view to directly supporting these via software.

Results : Five types of cognitive load are likely to be important. A planning support system, REACT, was designed to ameliorate these cognitive loads by providing targeted dynamic feedback during planning. An initial evaluation study in genetic counselling indicates that the approach is successful in that role.

Conclusions : The approach provides the basis of a general aid for visualizing, customizing and evaluating care plans.

Keywords

Patient care planning - decision making - user-computer interface

• References

• 1. Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002
• 2. Gigerenzer G, Selten R. Bounded Rationality: the Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 2002
• 3. Klein G. Sources of Power Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1998
• 4. Morris R, Ward G. The cognitive psychology of planning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press; 2005
• 5. UK Department of Health.. The expert patient: a new approach to chronic disease management for the 21st century. London: DoH; 2001
• 6. Owen AM. Cognitive planning in humans: Neuropsychological, neuroanatomical and neuropharmacological perspectives. Progress in Neurobiology 1997; 53: 431-450.
• 7. Hirt ER, Sherman SJ. The role of prior knowledge in explaining hypothetical events. Journal of Experimental Social Psycholgy 1985; 21: 519-543.
• 8. Huys J, Evers-Kiebooms G, d’Ydwalle G. Decision making in the context of genetic risk: The use of scenarios. Birth Defects: Original Article Series 1992; 28: 17-20.
• 9. Scaife M, Rogers Y. External cognition: How do graphical representations work?. Int J Hum-Comput St 1996; 45: 185-213.
• 10. Stenning K, Oberlander J. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science 1995; 19: 97-140.
• 11. Zhang J, Norman DA. Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science 1994; 18: 87-122.
• 12. Noyes JN, Garland KJ. Solving the Tower of Hanoi: Does mode of presentation matter?. Computers in Human Behavior 2003; 19: 579-592.
• 13. Fox J, Glasspool D, Bury J. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Reasoning under Uncertainty in Medical Decision Making. In: Quaglini S, Barahona P, Andreasson S (eds). AIME 2001, LNAI2101. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2001: 272-282.
• 14. Smith-Spark JH, Glasspool DW, Oettinger A, Yule P, Fox J. Planning, working memory, and interface support inamedical domain. In: Hommel B, Band G, La Heij W, Wolters G (eds). Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology. Leiden, Netherlands: European Society for Cognitive Psychology; 2005: 22-23.
• 15. Oetinger A, Glasspool DW, Braithwaite D, Fox J. Interactive Decision Support for Medical Planning: a Qualitative Evaluation of REACT in Cancer Genetic Counselling Sessions with Simulated Patients. (In preparation)
• 16. Timmons S. Resistance to computerized care planning systems by qualified nurses working in the UK NHS. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (04) 471-476.
• 17. Chien S, Rabideau G, Knight R. et al. ASPEN - Automating Space Mission Operations using Automated Planning and Scheduling. SpaceOps 2000, Toulouse, France, June 2000. Available at: http://www-aig.jpl.nasa.gov/public/planning/aspen/aspen_index.html Accessed April 11, 2005