Journal of Medical Systems

, 42:166 | Cite as

Patients Decision Aid System Based on FHIR Profiles

  • Ilia Semenov
  • Georgy KopanitsaEmail author
  • Dmitry Denisov
  • Yakovenko Alexandr
  • Roman Osenev
  • Yury Andreychuk
Patient Facing Systems
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Patient Facing Systems


Patients are becoming more and more involved in clinical decision-making process. Several factors support this process. Advances in omics allows individualization of diagnosis and treatment. Patient awareness and easy availability of data on the Internet allows patients to become informed decision makers when it comes even to disease management. Mass media emphasize the issue of medical errors, making patients demanding for quality in medical care. In some healthcare settings, patents face a problem of interpreting medical data and making decisions on treatment tactics without having a doctor, who could potentially support them. Delegating this task to a Patient Decision Aide system can add automatically generated recommendations to result reports without adding significant workload on the doctors, increase patients’ motivation and support their decisions. We have implemented a patient decision aid system based on the productions rules, which: Collects data from available sources; Automatically analyses and interprets laboratory test results; Recommends running additional tests for a more precise diagnostic; Delivers automatically generated reports to doctors and patients in a natural language. To achieve semantic interoperability with other systems we have implemented a FHIR engine. The knowledge base has been organized as a graph structure. The application is structured as a set of lightly coupled services, which implement the logic of the decision support system. In total, we have modelled 365 nodes of test components, 5084 nodes of inference rules, 49932 connections and 3072 blocks of text for medical certificates. The findings of the research provide a deep understanding of how the semantically interoperable clinical decision support systems are implemented. Advances in notification the patients with the elements of patient decision aid is important for clinical data management, and for patients’ empowerment and protection. We suppose that the system empowering patients in such way can play a meaningful role in helping patients to make informed decisions during the process of diagnostics and treatment.


Decision support Laboratory information system Telemedicine First order predicates 



The research is funded from Russian Science Foundation (RSF), The research was at Tomsk Polytechnic University within the framework of Tomsk Polytechnic University Competitiveness Enhancement Program grant.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ilia Semenov declares that he has no conflict of interest; Georgy Kopanitsa declares that he has no conflict of interest; Dmitry Denisov declares that he has no conflict of interest; Yakovenko Alexandr declares that he has no conflict of interest; Osenev Roman declares that he has no conflict of interest; Andreychuk Yury declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10916_2018_1016_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 13 kb)


  1. 1.
    Arnold, C. W., McNamara, M., El-Saden, S., Chen, S., Taira, R. K., and Bui, A. A., Imaging informatics for consumer health: Towards a radiology patient portal. J Am Med Inform Assoc 20:1028–1036, 2013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atalag, K., Yang, H. Y., Tempero, E., and Warren, J., Model driven development of clinical information sytems using openEHR. Stud Health Technol Inform 169:849–853, 2011.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldwin, D. M., Quintela, J., Duclos, C., Staton, E. W., and Pace, W. D., Patient preferences for notification of normal laboratory test results: A report from the ASIPS collaborative. BMC Fam Pract 6:11, 2005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barros Castro, J., Lamelo Alfonsin, A., Prieto Cebreiro, J., Rimada Mora, D., Carrajo Garcia, L., and Vazquez Gonzalez, G., Development of ISO 13606 archetypes for the standardisation of data registration in the primary care environment. Stud Health Technol Inform 210:877–881, 2015.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berry, K. J., Johnston, J. E., and Mielke, Jr., P. W., Weighted kappa for multiple raters. Percept Mot Skills 107:837–848, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boegl, K., Adlassnig, K. P., Hayashi, Y., Rothenfluh, T. E., and Leitich, H., Knowledge acquisition in the fuzzy knowledge representation framework of a medical consultation system. Artif Intell Med 30:1–26, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Callen, J. L., Westbrook, J. I., Georgiou, A., and Li, J., Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: A systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 27:1334–1348, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell, L., Watkins, R. M., and Teasdale, C., Communicating the result of breast biopsy by telephone or in person. Br J Surg 84:1381, 1997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ceriello, A., Barkai, L., Christiansen, J. S., Czupryniak, L., Gomis, R., Harno, K., Kulzer, B., Ludvigsson, J., Nemethyova, Z., Owens, D., Schnell, O., Tankova, T., Taskinen, M. R., Verges, B., Weitgasser, R., and Wens, J., Diabetes as a case study of chronic disease management with a personalized approach: The role of a structured feedback loop. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 98:5–10, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chi, C. L., Nick Street, W., Robinson, J. G., and Crawford, M. A., Individualized patient-centered lifestyle recommendations: An expert system for communicating patient specific cardiovascular risk information and prioritizing lifestyle options. J Biomed Inform 45:1164–1174, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choi, J., and Kim, H., Enhancement of decision rules to increase generalizability and performance of the rule-based system assessing risk for pressure ulcer. Appl Clin Inform 4:251–266, 2013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cox, C. E., White, D. B., and Abernethy, A. P., A universal decision support system. Addressing the decision-making needs of patients, families, and clinicians in the setting of critical illness. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 190:366–373, 2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dexheimer, J. W., Abramo, T. J., Arnold, D. H., Johnson, K., Shyr, Y., Ye, F., Fan, K. H., Patel, N., and Aronsky, D., Implementation and evaluation of an integrated computerized asthma management system in a pediatric emergency department: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Med Inform 83:805–813, 2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dixon, B. E., Simonaitis, L., Goldberg, H. S., Paterno, M. D., Schaeffer, M., Hongsermeier, T., Wright, A., and Middleton, B., A pilot study of distributed knowledge management and clinical decision support in the cloud. Artif Intell Med 59:45–53, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duke, J. D., Morea, J., Mamlin, B., Martin, D. K., Simonaitis, L., Takesue, B. Y., Dixon, B. E., and Dexter, P. R., Regenstrief Institute's medical gopher: A next-generation homegrown electronic medical record system. Int J Med Inform 83:170–179, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haeckel, R., Wosniok, W., and Arzideh, F., Proposed classification of various limit values (guide values) used in assisting the interpretation of quantitative laboratory test results. Clin Chem Lab Med 47:494–497, 2009.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herrick, D. B., Nakhasi, A., Nelson, B., Rice, S., Abbott, P. A., Saber Tehrani, A. S., Rothman, R. E., Lehmann, H. P., and Newman-Toker, D. E., Usability characteristics of self-administered computer-assisted interviewing in the emergency department: Factors affecting ease of use, efficiency, and entry error. Appl Clin Inform 4:276–292, 2013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herwehe, J., Wilbright, W., Abrams, A., Bergson, S., Foxhood, J., Kaiser, M., Smith, L., Xiao, K., Zapata, A., and Magnus, M., Implementation of an innovative, integrated electronic medical record (EMR) and public health information exchange for HIV/AIDS. J Am Med Inform Assoc 19:448–452, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hsieh, N. C., Chang, C. Y., Lee, K. C., Chen, J. C., and Chan, C. H., Technological innovations in the development of cardiovascular clinical information systems. J Med Syst 36:965–978, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson, K. B., Ho, Y. X., Andrew Spooner, S., Palmer, M., and Weinberg, S. T., Assessing the reliability of an automated dose-rounding algorithm. J Biomed Inform 46:814–821, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kashfi, H., An openEHR-based clinical decision support system: A case study. Stud Health Technol Inform 150:348, 2009.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kastner, M., and Straus, S. E., Application of the knowledge-to-action and Medical Research Council frameworks in the development of an osteoporosis clinical decision support tool. J Clin Epidemiol 65:1163–1170, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kawada, T., Sample size in receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Circ J 76:768, 2012 author reply 769.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khalilia, M., Choi, M., Henderson, A., Iyengar, S., Braunstein, M., and Sun, J., Clinical predictive modeling development and deployment through FHIR web services. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2015:717–726, 2015.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kopanitsa, G., Evaluation study for an ISO 13606 archetype based medical data visualization method. J Med Syst 39:82, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuru, K., Girgin, S., Arda, K., and Bozlar, U., A novel report generation approach for medical applications: The SISDS methodology and its applications. Int J Med Inform 82:435–447, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    LeBlanc, A., Ruud, K. L., Branda, M. E., Tiedje, K., Boehmer, K. R., Pencille, L. J., Van Houten, H., Matthews, M., Shah, N. D., May, C. R., Yawn, B. P., and Montori, V. M., The impact of decision aids to enhance shared decision making for diabetes (the DAD study): Protocol of a cluster randomized trial. BMC Health Serv Res 12:130, 2012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leroux, H., Metke-Jimenez, A., and Lawley, M. J., Towards achieving semantic interoperability of clinical study data with FHIR. J Biomed Semantics 8:41, 2017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lin, H. C., Wu, H. C., Chang, C. H., Li, T. C., Liang, W. M., and Wang, J. Y., A real time online assessment system with modelized architecture on clinical infometrics for patient reported outcomes of prostate cancer. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 106:249–259, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lindblom, K., Gregory, T., Wilson, C., Flight, I. H., and Zajac, I., The impact of computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and perceived usability and acceptability on the efficacy of a decision support tool for colorectal cancer screening. J Am Med Inform Assoc 19:407–412, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luo, G., Tang, C., and Thomas, S. B., Intelligent personal health record: Experience and open issues. J Med Syst 36:2111–2128, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marcos, M., Maldonado, J. A., Martinez-Salvador, B., Bosca, D., and Robles, M., Interoperability of clinical decision-support systems and electronic health records using archetypes: A case study in clinical trial eligibility. J Biomed Inform 46:676–689, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McDermott, M. S., and While, A. E., Maximizing the healthcare environment: A systematic review exploring the potential of computer technology to promote self-management of chronic illness in healthcare settings. Patient Educ Couns 92:13–22, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ogburn, T., Shared decision making and informed consent for hysterectomy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 57:3–13, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paun, I. D., Sauciuc, D. G., Iosif, N. O., Stan, O., Perse, A., Dehelean, C., and Miclea, L., Local EHR management based on openEHR and EN13606. J Med Syst 35:585–590, 2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pecoraro, F., Luzi, D., and Ricci, F. L., Data warehouse design from HL7 clinical document architecture Schema. Stud Health Technol Inform 213:139–142, 2015.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pulley, J. M., Denny, J. C., Peterson, J. F., Bernard, G. R., Vnencak-Jones, C. L., Ramirez, A. H., Delaney, J. T., Bowton, E., Brothers, K., Johnson, K., Crawford, D. C., Schildcrout, J., Masys, D. R., Dilks, H. H., Wilke, R. A., Clayton, E. W., Shultz, E., Laposata, M., McPherson, J., Jirjis, J. N., and Roden, D. M., Operational implementation of prospective genotyping for personalized medicine: The design of the Vanderbilt PREDICT project. Clin Pharmacol Ther 92:87–95, 2012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Quaglini, S., Sacchi, L., Lanzola, G., and Viani, N., Personalization and patient involvement in decision support systems: Current trends. Yearb Med Inform 10:106–118, 2015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Riano, D., Real, F., Lopez-Vallverdu, J. A., Campana, F., Ercolani, S., Mecocci, P., Annicchiarico, R., and Caltagirone, C., An ontology-based personalization of health-care knowledge to support clinical decisions for chronically ill patients. J Biomed Inform 45:429–446, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Romatowski, J., Problems in interpretation of clinical laboratory test results. J Am Vet Med Assoc 205:1186–1188, 1994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Saverno, K. R., Rochau, U., Stenehjem, D. D., Morley, K., Siebert, U., and Brixner, D. I., Application of decision-analytic models in personalized medicine for CML treatment decisions made by payers, providers, and patients. J Manag Care Pharm 18:457–463, 2012.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Semenov, I., and Kopanitsa, G., Implementation of a decision support system for interpretation of laboratory tests for patients. Stud Health Technol Inform 221:79–83, 2016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Semenov, I., Kopanitsa, G., Karpov, A., Lakovenko, G., and Laskovenko, A., Implementation of a clinical decision support system for interpretation of laboratory tests for patients. Stud Health Technol Inform 224:184–188, 2016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Simon, D., Kriston, L., von Wolff, A., Buchholz, A., Vietor, C., Hecke, T., Loh, A., Zenker, M., Weiss, M., and Harter, M., Effectiveness of a web-based, individually tailored decision aid for depression or acute low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 87:360–368, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stein, B. D., Kogan, J. N., Mihalyo, M. J., Schuster, J., Deegan, P. E., Sorbero, M. J., and Drake, R. E., Use of a computerized medication shared decision making tool in community mental health settings: Impact on psychotropic medication adherence. Community Ment Health J 49:185–192, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Taranik, M., and Kopanitsa, G., Information system of personalized Patient's adherence level determination. Stud Health Technol Inform 237:68–72, 2017.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang, H. Q., Li, J. S., Zhang, Y. F., Suzuki, M., and Araki, K., Creating personalised clinical pathways by semantic interoperability with electronic health records. Artif Intell Med 58:81–89, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wu, R., Boushey, R., Potter, B., and Stacey, D., The evaluation of a rectal cancer decision aid and the factors influencing its implementation in clinical practice. BMC Surg 14:16, 2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yu, H. J., Lai, H. S., Chen, K. H., Chou, H. C., Wu, J. M., Dorjgochoo, S., Mendjargal, A., Altangerel, E., Tien, Y. W., Hsueh, C. W., and Lai, F., A sharable cloud-based pancreaticoduodenectomy collaborative database for physicians: Emphasis on security and clinical rule supporting. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 111:488–497, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medlinx LLCSaint-PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Tomsk Polytechnic UniversityTomskRussia
  3. 3.Helix Laboratory ServiceSaint-PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations