Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2008; 47(05): 392-398
DOI: 10.3414/ME9120
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Formally Defining Medical Processes

S. Christov
1   Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA
,
B. Chen
1   Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA
,
G. S. Avrunin
1   Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA
,
L. A. Clarke
1   Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA
,
L. J. Osterweil
1   Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA
,
D. Brown
2   D’Amour Center for Cancer Care, Springfield, MA, USA
,
L. Cassells
2   D’Amour Center for Cancer Care, Springfield, MA, USA
,
W. Mertens
2   D’Amour Center for Cancer Care, Springfield, MA, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: To demonstrate a technology-based approach to continuously improving the safety of medical processes.

Methods: The paper describes the Little-JIL process definition language, originally developed to support software engineering, and shows how it can be used to model medical processes. The paper describes a Little- JIL model of a chemotherapy process and demonstrates how this model, and some process analysis technologies that are also briefly described, can be used to identify process defects that pose safety risks.

Results: Rigorously modeling medical processes with Little-JIL and applying automated analysis techniques to those models helped identify process defects and vulnerabilities and led to improved processes that were reanalyzed to show that the original defects were no longer present.

Conclusions: Creating detailed and precisely defined models of medical processes that are then used as the basis for rigorous analyses can lead to improvements in the safety of these processes.

Keywords

Medical safety - continuous process improvement - process modeling
 

  • References

  • 1 Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. editors. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Institute of Medicine.. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Deming WE. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1982
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Shewhart WA. Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. D. Van Nostrand Co.; 1931
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Cobleigh RL, Avrunin GS, Clarke LA. User Guidance for Creating Precise and Accessible Property Specifications. ACM Symp on the Foundations of Software Engineering; 2006; Portland, OR 2006 pp 208-218.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dwyer MB, Clarke LA, Cobleigh JM, Naumovich G. Flow Analysis for Verifying Properties of Concurrent Software Systems. ACM Trans on Software Engineering and Methodology 2004; 13 (04) 359-430.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Holzmann GJ. The SPIN Model Checker. Addison-Wesley; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Boose ER, Ellison AM, Osterweil LJ, Clarke L, Podorozhny R, Hadley JL. et al. Ensuring Reliable Datasets for Environmental Models and Forecasts. Ecological Informatics 2007; 2: 237-247.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Schweik CM, Osterweil LJ, Sondheimer N, Thomas C. Analyzing Processes for E-Government Development: The Emergence of Process Modeling Languages. J of E-Government 2004; 1 (04) 63-89.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cass AG, Lerner BS, McCall EK, Osterweil LJ, Stanley M, Sutton J, Wise A. Little-JIL/Juliette: A Process Definition Language and Interpreter. Intl Conf on Software Engineering 2000; Limerick, Ireland; 2000. pp 754-758.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Wise A. Little-JIL 1.5 Language Report. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (UM-CS-2006–51); 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Chen B, Avrunin GS, Henneman EA, Clarke LA, Osterweil LJ, Henneman PL. Analyzing Medical Processes. Intl Conf on Software Engineering; 2008. Leipzig, Germany: 2008. pp 623-632.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Shahar Y, Miksch S, Johnson P. The Asgaard Project: A Task-Specific Framework for the Application and Critiquing of Time-Oriented Clinical Guidelines. Artif Intel in Medicine 1998: 29-51.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tu SW, Musen MA. A Flexible Approach to Guideline Modeling. Am Medical Informatics Assoc Symp; 1999 pp 420-424.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Molino G, Terenziani P, Montani S, Bottrighi A. Torchio. M.. Glare: A Domain-Independent System for Acquiring, Representing and Executing Clinical Guidelines. Am Medical Informatics Association Symp Supplement; 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Peleg M, Boxwala A, Ogunyemi O, Zeng Q, Tu S, Lacson R. et al. GLIF3: The Evolution of a Guideline Representation Format. Am Medical Informatics Association Symp; 2000 pp 645-649.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sutton DR, Fox J. The Syntax and Semantics of the PROforma Guideline Modeling Language. J of Am Medical Informatics Association 2003; 10 (05) 433-443.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Protocure II, 2006 [cited; Available from: http://www.protocure.org ]
    PubMed
  • 19 ten Teije A, Marcos M, Balser M, van Croonenborg J, Duelli C, van Harmelen F. et al. Improving Medical Protocols by Formal Methods. Artif Intel in Medicine 2006; 36 (03) 193-209.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Baumler S, Balser M, Dunets A, Reif W, Schmitt J. Verification of Medical Guidelines by Model Checking – A Case Study. SPIN 2006 Springer-Verlag LNCS; 2006 p 3925.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Balser M, Reif W, Schellhorn G, Stenzel K, Thums A. Formal System Development with KIV. Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. Springer-Verlag LNCS; 2000. pp 363-366.
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Cimatti A, Clarke E, Giunchiglia E, Giunchiglia F, Pistore M, Roveri M. et al. NuSMV Version 2: An OpenSource Tool for Symbolic Model Checking. Computer Aided Verification Springer-Verlag LNCS 2002; 2404: 359-365.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Noumeir R. Radiology Interpretation Process Modeling. J of Biomedical Informatics 2006; 39 (02) 103-114.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ruffolo M, Curio R, Gallucci L. Process Management in Health Care: A System for Preventing Risks and Medical Errors. Business Process Mgmt 2005 pp 334-343.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Voak D, Chapman JF, Phillips P. Quality of Transfusion Practice Beyond the Blood Transfusion Laboratory Is Essential to Prevent ABO-Incompatible Death. Transfusion Medicine 2000; 10: 95-96.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Battles JB, Kaplan HS, van der Schaaf TW, Shea CE. The Attributes of Medical Event Reporting Systems for Transfusion Medicine. Arch Pathology Laboratory Medicine 1998; 122: 231-238.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Galel SA, Richards CA. Practical Approaches to Improve Laboratory Performance and Transfusion Safety. Am J of Clinical Pathology 1997; 107 (01) S43-S9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 van der Gaag LC, Renooji S, Witteman CLM, Aleman BMP, Taal BG. Probabilities for a Probabilistic Network: A Case-Study in Oesophageal Cancer. Artif Intel in Medicine 2002; 25 (02) 123-148.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Vesely W, Goldberg F, Roberts N, Haasl D. Fault Tree Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1981 (January).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Chen B, Avrunin GS, Clarke LA, Osterweil LJ. Automatic Fault Tree Derivation from Little-JIL Process Definitions. 2006 Software Process Workshop and 2006 Process Simulation Workshop; May 20-22, 2006, Shanghai, China. Springer-Verlag LNCS; 2006 pp 150-158.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Raunak MS, Osterweil LJ. Effective Resource Allocation for Process Simulation: A Position Paper. Intl Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling; May 14-15, 2005. St. Louis, MO; 2005
    PubMedGoogle Scholar