MitPlan: A Planning Approach to Mitigating Concurrently Applied Clinical Practice Guidelines

  • Martin MichalowskiEmail author
  • Szymon Wilk
  • Wojtek Michalowski
  • Marc Carrier
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11526)


As the overall population ages, patient complexity and the scope of their care is increasing. Over 60% of the population over 65 years of age suffers from multi-morbidity, which is associated with over two times as many patient-physician encounters. Yet clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are developed to treat a single disease. To reconcile these two competing issues, we developed a framework for identifying and addressing adverse interactions in multi-morbid patients managed according to multiple CPGs. The framework relies on first-order logic (FOL) to represent CPGs and secondary medical knowledge and FOL theorem proving to establish valid patient management scenarios. In this work, we leverage the framework’s representation capabilities to simplify its mitigation process and cast it as a planning problem represented using the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL). We demonstrate the framework’s ability to identify and mitigate adverse interactions using planning actions, add support for durative clinical actions, and show the improved interpretability of management plan recommendations in the context of both proof-of-concept and clinical examples.


Clinical practice guidelines Multi-morbidity Planning 


  1. 1.
    Rosenfeld, R.M., Shiffman, R.N.: Clinical practice guideline development manual: a quality-driven approach for translating evidence into action, otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 140, S1–S43 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goud, R., et al.: The effect of computerized decision support on barriers to guideline implementation: a qualitative study in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. Int. J. Med. Inform. 79, 430–437 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peleg, M.: Computer-interpretable clinical guidelines: a methodological review. J. Biomed. Inform. 46(4), 744–763 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shekelle, P., Woolf, S., Grimshaw, J.M., Schunemann, H.J., Eccles, M.P.: Developing clinical practice guidelines: reviewing, reporting, and publishing guidelines; updating guidelines; and the emerging issues of enhancing guideline implementability and accounting for comorbid conditions in guideline development. Implement. Sci. 7, 62 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xu, J., Murphy, S.L., Kochanek, K.D., Arias, E.: Mortality in the United States, 2015. NCHS Data Brief 267, 1–8 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyd, C.M., Darer, J., Boult, C., Fried, L.P., Boult, L., Wu, A.W.: Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA 294, 716–724 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riaño, D., Ortega, W.: Computer technologies to integrate medical treatments to manage multimorbidity. J. Biomed. Inform. 75, 1–13 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilk, Sz., Michalowski, M., Michalowski, W., Rosu, D., Carrier, M., Kezadri-Hamiaz, M.: Comprehensive mitigation framework for concurrent application of multiple clinical practice guidelines. J. Biomed. Inform. 66(2), 52–71 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilk, Sz., Michalowski, M., Michalowski, W., Farion, K., Hing, M.M., Mohapatra, S.: Mitigation of adverse interactions in pairs of clinical practice guidelines using constraint logic programming. J. Biomed. Inform. 46(2), 341–353 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hing, M.M., Michalowski, M., Wilk, Sz., Michalowski, W., Farion, K.: Identifying inconsistencies in multiple clinical practice guidelines for a patient with co-morbidity. In: IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine Workshops (BIBMW), pp. 447–452. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coles, A., Coles, A., Fox, M., Long, D.: Forward-chaining partial-order planning. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling ICAPS 2010, pp. 42–49. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Piovesan, L., Terenziani, P., Molino, G.: GLARE-SSCPM: an intelligent system to support the treatment of comorbid patients. IEEE Intell. Syst. 33(6), 37–46 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fdez-Olivares, J., Onaindia, E., Castillo, L., Jordán, J., Cózar, J.: Personalized conciliation of clinical guidelines for comorbid patients through multi-agent planning. Artif. Intel. Med. (2018, in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Michalowski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Szymon Wilk
    • 2
  • Wojtek Michalowski
    • 3
  • Marc Carrier
    • 4
  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Poznan University of TechnologyPoznanPoland
  3. 3.University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  4. 4.The Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations