Journal of Medical Systems

, 40:42 | Cite as

Using Semantic Components to Represent Dynamics of an Interdisciplinary Healthcare Team in a Multi-Agent Decision Support System

  • Szymon Wilk
  • Mounira Kezadri-Hamiaz
  • Daniela Rosu
  • Craig Kuziemsky
  • Wojtek Michalowski
  • Daniel Amyot
  • Marc Carrier
Mobile Systems
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Mobile Systems


In healthcare organizations, clinical workflows are executed by interdisciplinary healthcare teams (IHTs) that operate in ways that are difficult to manage. Responding to a need to support such teams, we designed and developed the MET4 multi-agent system that allows IHTs to manage patients according to presentation-specific clinical workflows. In this paper, we describe a significant extension of the MET4 system that allows for supporting rich team dynamics (understood as team formation, management and task-practitioner allocation), including selection and maintenance of the most responsible physician and more complex rules of selecting practitioners for the workflow tasks. In order to develop this extension, we introduced three semantic components: (1) a revised ontology describing concepts and relations pertinent to IHTs, workflows, and managed patients, (2) a set of behavioral rules describing the team dynamics, and (3) an instance base that stores facts corresponding to instances of concepts from the ontology and to relations between these instances. The semantic components are represented in first-order logic and they can be automatically processed using theorem proving and model finding techniques. We employ these techniques to find models that correspond to specific decisions controlling the dynamics of IHT. In the paper, we present the design of extended MET4 with a special focus on the new semantic components. We then describe its proof-of-concept implementation using the WADE multi-agent platform and the Z3 solver (theorem prover/model finder). We illustrate the main ideas discussed in the paper with a clinical scenario of an IHT managing a patient with chronic kidney disease.


Interdisciplinary healthcare team Clinical workflow Multi-agent system First-order logic Ontology 



This research was supported by grants from the NSERC CREATE Program in Healthcare Operations and Information Management and the Telfer School of Management Research Fund. We would like to acknowledge contribution of Mr. Runzhuo Li in implementing an earlier version of the MET4 system. We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Jun, G. T., Ward, J., Morris, Z., and Clarkson, J., Health care process modelling: which method when? Int. J. Qual. Health Care 21(3):214–224, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wen, J., Schulman, and K. A., Can team-based care improve patient satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 9(7):e100603, 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oandasan, I., D’Amour, D., Zwarenstein, M., Barker, K., Purden, M., Beaulieu, M., Reeves, S., Nasmith, L., Bosco, C., and Ginsburg, L., Interdisciplinary education for collaborative, patient-centred practice: research and findings report. Health Canada, Government of Canada, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andreatta, P. B., A typology for health care teams. Health Care Manag. Rev. 35(4):345–354, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Isern, D., Sánchez, D., and Moreno, A., Agents applied in health care: a review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 79(3):145–166, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Isern, D., Moreno, A., Sánchez, D., Hajnal, Á., Pedone, G., and Varga, L. Z., Agent-based execution of personalised home care treatments. Appl. Intell. 34(2):155–180, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Astaraky, D., Wilk, S., Michalowski, W., Andreev, P., Kuziemsky, C., and Hadjiyannakis, S., A multiagent system to support an interdisciplinary healthcare team: a case study of clinical obesity management in children. In: Proceedings of the VIII Workshop on Agents Applied in Healthcare and Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Murcia, Spain, pp 69–79, 2013.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuziemsky, C., Astaraky, D., Wilk, S., Michalowski, W., and Andreev, P., A framework for incorporating patient preferences to deliver participatory medicine via interdisciplinary healthcare teams. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc., 835–844, 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilk, S., Astaraky, D., Amyot, D., Runzhuo, L., Kuziemsky, C., and Andreev, P., MET4: supporting workflow execution for interdisciplinary healthcare teams. In: Fournier, F., and Mendling, J. (Eds.) Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2014 International Workshops, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, September 7–8, 2014, Revised Papers. LNBIP. Vol. 202. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp 40–52, 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pavlov, V., Schukin, A., and Cherkasova, T., Exploring automated reasoning in first-order logic: tools, techniques and application areas. In: Klinov, P., and Mouromtsev, D. (Eds.) Knowledge Engineering and the Semantic Web. 4th International Conference, KESW 2013, St. Petersburg, Russia, October 7–9, 2013. Proceedings. CCIS. Vol. 394. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp 102–116, 2013.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scheuerlein, H., Rauchfuss, F., Dittmar, Y., Molle, R., Lehmann, T., Pienkos, N., and Settmacher, U., New methods for clinical pathways-Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) and Tangible Business Process Modeling (t.BPM). Langenbeck’s Arch. Surg. 397(5):755–761, 2012. doi: 10.1007/s00423-012-0914-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strasser, M., Pfeifer, F., Helm, E., Schuler, A., and Altmann, J., Defining and reconstructing clinical processes based on IHE and BPMN 2.0. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 169:482–486, 2011.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peleg, M., Computer-interpretable clinical guidelines: a methodological review. J. Biomed. Inform. 46(4):744–763, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.06.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Müller, R., and Rogge-Solti, A., BPMN for healthcare processes. In: Eichhorn, D., Koschmider, A., and Zhang, H. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd Central-European Workshop on Services and their Composition, ZEUS 2011. CEUR-WS Vol. 705, pp 65–72, 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grando, A., Peleg, M., and Glasspool, D., A goal-oriented framework for specifying clinical guidelines and handling medical errors. J. Biomed. Inform. 43(2):287–299, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark, P. G., and Drinka, T. J. K., Health care teamwork: interdisciplinary practice and teaching. Greenwood Publishing Group, USA, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sims, S., Hewitt, G., and Harris, R., Evidence of collaboration, pooling of resources, learning and role blurring in interprofessional healthcare teams: a realist synthesis. J. Interprof. Care 29(1):20–25, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sims, S., Hewitt, G., and Harris, R., Evidence of a shared purpose, critical reflection, innovation and leadership in interprofessional healthcare teams: a realist synthesis. J. Interprof. Care 29(3):209–215, 2015. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2014.941459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuziemsky, C. E., and Varpio, L., A model of awareness to enhance our understanding of interprofessional collaborative care delivery and health information system design to support it. Int. J. Med. Inform. 80(8):e150–160, 2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Riley, W., Lownik, E., Parrotta, C., Miller, K., and Stan, D., Creating high reliability teams in healthcare through In situ simulation training. Adm. Sci 1(1):14–31, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buljac-Samardzic, M., Dekker-van Doorn, C. M., van Wijngaarden, J. D., and van Wijk, K. P., Interventions to improve team effectiveness: a systematic review. Health Policy 94(3):183–195, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N. R., and Wooldridge, M., Organisational rules as an abstraction for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 11(3):303–328, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Vecht, B., Dignum, F., Meyer, J. J. C., and Dignum, V., Organizations and autonomous agents: bottom-up dynamics of coordination mechanisms. In: Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems IV. COIN 2008 International Workshops, COIN@AAMAS 2008, Estoril, Portugal, May 12, 2008. COIN@AAAI 2008, Chicago, USA, July 14, 2008. Revised Selected Papers. LNAI, Vol. 5428. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp 17–32, 2009.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Riemsdijk, M. B., Dignum, V., Jonker, C. M., and Aldewereld, H., Programming role enactment through reflection. In: 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), Vol. 2. IEEE CS, pp 133–140, 2011.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Panagiotidi, S., Alvarez-Napagao, S., and Vázquez-Salceda, J., Towards the norm-aware agent: bridging the gap between deontic specifications and practical mechanisms for norm monitoring and norm-aware planning. In: Balke, T., Dignum, F., van Riemsdijk, M. B., and Chopra, A. K. (Eds.) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems IX. COIN 2013 International Workshops, COIN@AAMAS, St. Paul, MN, USA, May 6, 2013, COIN@PRIMA, Dunedin, New Zealand, December 3, 2013. Revised Selected Papers. LNAI, Vol. 8386. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp 346–363, 2014.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Panagiotidi, S., and Vázquez-Salceda, J., Norm-aware planning: semantics and implementation. In: 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), Vol. 3. IEEE CS, pp 33–36, 2011.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weerakkody, G., and Ray, P., CSCW-based system development methodology for health-care information systems. Telemed. J. E. Health 9(3):273–282, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moreno, A., Valls, A., and Riaño, D., PalliaSys: agent-based proactive monitoring of palliative patients. In: Proceedings of the IV International Workshop on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (IWPAAMS). León, Spain, pp 101–110, 2005.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Su, C.-J., and Wu, C.-Y., JADE implemented mobile multi-agent based, distributed information platform for pervasive health care monitoring. Appl. Soft Comput. 11(1):315–325, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Isern, D., Sánchez, D., and Moreno, A., HeCaSe2: a multi-agent ontology-driven guideline enactment engine. In: Burkhard, H.-D., Lindemann, G., Verbrugge, R., and Varga, L. Z. (Eds.) Multi-Agent Systems and Applications V. 5th International Central and Eastern European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, CEEMAS 2007, Leipzig, Germany, September 25–27, 2007. Proceedings. LNAI, Vol. 4696. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp 322–324, 2007.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Garcia-Ojeda, J. C., DeLoach, S. A., Robby, Oyenan, W. H., and Valenzuela, J., O-MaSE: a customizable approach to developing multiagent development processes. In: Luck, M. (Ed.) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VIII: the 8th International Workshop on Agent Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE 2007). LNCS, Vol. 4951. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1–15, 2008.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilk, S., Michalowski, W., O’Sullivan, D., Farion, K., Sayyad-Shirabad, J., Kuziemsky, C., and Kukawka, B., A task-based support architecture for developing point-of-care clinical decision support systems for the emergency department. Methods Inf. Med. 52(1):18–32, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wade Site, WADE: workflows and agents development environment. Accessed January 10, 2015.
  34. 34.
    Z3: a high-performance theorem prover. Accessed October 10, 2015.
  35. 35.
    Cok, D. R., Stump, A., and Weber, T., The 2013 evaluation of SMT-COMP and SMT-LIB. J. Autom. Reason. 55(1):61–90, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wolfe, B. A., Mamlin, B. W., Biondich, P. G., Fraser, H. S. F., Jazayeri, D., Allen, C., Miranda, J., and Tierney, W. M. The OpenMRS system: collaborating toward an open source EMR for developing countries. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 1146–1146, 2006.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Levin, A., Hemmelgarn, B., Culleton, B., Tobe, S., McFarlane, P., Ruzicka, M., Burns, K., Manns, B., White, C., Madore, F., Moist, L., Klarenbach, S., Barrett, B., Foley, R., Jindal, K., Senior, P., Pannu, N., Shurraw, S., Akbari, A., Cohn, A., Reslerova, M., Deved, V., Mendelssohn, D., Nesrallah, G., Kappel, J., and Tonelli, M., Guidelines for the management of chronic kidney disease. CMAJ 179(11):1154–1162, 2008.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Szymon Wilk
    • 1
  • Mounira Kezadri-Hamiaz
    • 2
  • Daniela Rosu
    • 2
  • Craig Kuziemsky
    • 2
  • Wojtek Michalowski
    • 2
  • Daniel Amyot
    • 2
  • Marc Carrier
    • 3
  1. 1.Poznan University of TechnologyPoznanPoland
  2. 2.University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations