Model-Driven GUI Automation for Efficient Information Exchange Between Heterogeneous Electronic Medical Record Systems

  • Xuebing YangEmail author
  • Yuan Miao
  • Yanchun Zhang
Conference paper


To provide high quality healthcare service, all relevant information of a patient is paramount. Most of the patient healthcare information is stored in disparate electronic medical record (EMR) systems of healthcare providers such as general practitioners (GP), specialists, hospitals etc. Integrating the existing heterogeneous EMRs for data sharing is crucial. All existing integration solutions need the numerous EMR software vendors to update their software to follow ever-changing messaging standards, provided interfaces or other criterions. The cost and efforts of the enormous amount of time required to negotiate with the large number of project participants for upgrading existing systems is extremely high. Almost exclusively, software today provides a graphical user interface (GUI) as the only method for users to access the functionality of the software. In this chapter, we propose a model for automating the procedure of operating the GUI based EMR and exchange information with them without the need of updating the existing EMR systems. The model is called parameterized GUI state model (PGUISM) which depicts the intrinsic logic of GUIs and enables the automated process of writing and reading information to and from EMR systems.


Graphic user interface automation Health information exchange Healthcare service integration 


  1. 1.
    Dalsgaard E, Kjelstrom K, Riis J (2008) A federation of web services for Danish health care ID trust, 4–6 Mar 2008, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walker J, Pan E, Johnston D, Adler-Milstein J, Bates DW, Middleton B (2005) The value of health care information exchange and interoperability. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005: 10–18 (19 Jan 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldschmidt P (2005) HIT and MIS: implications of health information technology and medical information systems. Commun ACM 48(10):69–74 (Oct)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Linden H, Kalra D, Hasman A, Talmon J (2009) Inter-organizational future proof EHR systems: a review of the security and privacy related issues. Internet J Med Inf 78:141–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang W, Wang M, Zhu S (2005) Healthcare information system integration: a service oriented approach. Services systems and services management, 2005. In: Proceedings of ICSSSM ’05, vol 2. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 1475–1480Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooks P, Robinson B, Memon AM (2009) An initial characterization of industrial graphical user interface systems. In: ICST 2009: proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international conference on software testing, verification and validation. IEEE Computer Society, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Memon AM, Banerjee I, Nagarajan A (2003) GUI ripping: reverse engineering of graphical user interfaces for testing. In: Proceedings of The 10th working conference on reverse engineering, Victoria, NovGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson J, Bache G (2004) The video store revisited yet again: adventures in GUI acceptance testing. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering, LNCS 3092. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dutta S (2003) Abbot—a friendly JUnit extension for GUI testing. Java Dev J 8:8–12Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowell C, Stell-Smith J (2003) Abbot—a friendly JUnit extension for GUI testing. LNCS 2675:331–333Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finsterwalder M (2001) Automating acceptance tests for GUI applications in an extreme programming environment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on extreme programming and flexible processes in software engineering, Sardinia, Italy, pp 20–23Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McMaster S, Memon AM (2009) An extensible heuristic-based framework for GUI test case maintenance. ICSTW, IEEE international conference on software testing, verification, and validation workshops, pp 251–254Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarke JM (1998) Automated test generation from a behavioral model. In: Proceedings of Pacific northwest software quality conference. Pnsqc/Pacific Agenda, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chow TS (1978) Testing software design modeled by finite-state machines. IEEE Trans Softw Eng SE 4(3):178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Esmelioglu S, Apfelbaum L (1997) Automated test generation, execution, and reporting. In: Proceedings of Pacific northwest software quality conference. Pnsqc/Pacific Agenda, Portland, pp 127–142Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bernhard PJ (1994) A reduced test suite for protocol conformance testing. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 3(3):201–220 (July)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shehady RK, Siewiorek DP (1997) A method to automate user interface testing using variable finite state machines. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual international symposium on fault-tolerant computing (FTCS’97). IEEE Press, Washington, Brussels, Tokyo, pp 80–88Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    White L, Almezen H (2000). Generating test cases for GUI responsibilities using complete interaction sequences. In: ISSRE ’00: proceedings of the 11th international symposium on software reliability engineering (ISSRE’00). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, p 110Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Offutt AJ, Hayes JH (1996) A semantic model of program faults. In: ISSTA’96: proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on software testing and analysis. ACM Press, New York, pp 195–200Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paiva ACR, Tillmann N, Faria JCP, Vidal RFAM (2005) Modeling and testing hierarchical GUIs. In: Proceedings of the 12th international workshop on abstract state machines, Paris, France, pp 153–165Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paiva ACR (2009) Automated GUI testing in informática. In: XIII Convención Y Feria Internacional Informática, Publicado por Lesman on SunGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Memon AM, Xie Q (2005) Studying the fault-detection effectiveness of GUI test cases for rapidly evolving software. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31:884–896 0(Oct)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xie Q, Memon AM (2005) Rapid “crash testing” for continuously evolving GUI-based software applications. In: ICSM ’05: proceedings of the 21st IEEE international conference on software maintenance (ICSM’05). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 473–482Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xie Q, Memon AM (2006) Automated model-based testing of community-driven open source GUI applications. In: ICSM ’06: proceedings of the 22nd IEEE international conference on software maintenance. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 145–154Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xie Q, Memon AM (2008) Using a pilot study to derive a GUI model for automated testing. ACM transactions on software engineering and methodology. ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Memon AM (2009) An event-flow model to test EDS. In: Belini EA (ed) Software engineering and development. Nova Science Publishers, HauppaugeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhu H, Wong WE, Belli F (2008) Advancing test automation technology to meet the challenges of model-driven software development: report on the 3rd workshop on automation of software test. ICSE, Leipzig, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Belli F (2001) Finite-state testing and analysis of graphical user interfaces, ISSRE. Paderborn University, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yang X, Miao Y, Zhang Y (2009) GP eConnect: extends e-referrals exchange to healthcare providers’ collaborations. IADIS eHealth 2009. Algarve, Portugal, 21–23 JuneGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang X, Miao Y (2011) Distributed agent based interoperable virtual EMR system for healthcare system integration, J Med Sys 35(3):309–319MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering and ScienceVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations