Advertisement

Assessment of Clinical Guideline Models Based on Metrics for Business Process Models

  • Mar MarcosEmail author
  • Joaquín Torres-Sospedra
  • Begoña Martínez-Salvador
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8903)

Abstract

The formalisation of clinical guidelines is a long and demanding task which usually involves both clinical and IT staff. Because of the features of guideline representation languages, a clear understanding of the final guideline model may prove complicated for clinicians. In this context, an assessment of the understandability of the guideline model becomes crucial. In the field of Business Process Modelling (BPM) there is research on structural metrics and their connection with the quality of process models, concretely with understandability and modifiability. In this paper we adapt the structural metrics that have been proposed in the field of BPM in terms of the features of a specific guideline representation language, which is PROforma. Additionally, we present some experiments consisting in the application of these adapted metrics to the assessment of guideline models described in PROforma. Although it has not been possible to draw meaningful conclusions on the overall quality of the models, our experiments have served to shed light on important aspects to be considered, such as the hierarchical decomposition of processes.

Keywords

Clinical guidelines Formalisation of clinical guidelines Evaluation of clinical guideline models 

References

  1. 1.
    Sonnenberg, F., Hagerty, C.: Computer-interpretable clinical practice guidelines. where are we and where are we going? In: IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics pp. 145–158 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mendling, J.: Metrics for Business Process Models. In: Metrics for Business Process Models. Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sánchez González, L., García Rubio, F., Ruiz González, F., Piattini Velthuis, M.: Measurement in business processes: a systematic review. Bus. Process. Manage. J. 16(1), 114–134 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Mendling, J., Ruiz, F.: Quality assessment of business process models based on thresholds. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T.S., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6426, pp. 78–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Applying graph reduction techniques for identifying structural conflicts in process models. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, p. 195. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fox, J., Johns, N., Rahmanzadeh, A.: Disseminating medical knowledge: the PROforma approach. Artif. Intell. Med. 14(1–2), 157–182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration in Cognitive Science & Systems Engineering: Tallis training. http://archive.cossac.org/tallis/index.html. Accessed April 2014
  9. 9.
    Mohler, J.L., Armstrong, A.J., Bahnson, R.R., Boston, B., Busby, J.E., D’Amico, A.V., Eastham, J.A., Enke, C.A., Farrington, T., Higano, C.S., Horwitz, E.M., Kantoff, P.W., Kawachi, M.H., Kuettel, M., Lee, R.J., MacVicar, G.R., Malcolm, A.W., Miller, D., Plimack, E.R., Pow-Sang, J.M., Roach 3rd, M., Rohren, E., Rosenfeld, S., Srinivas, S., Strope, S.A., Tward, J., Twardowski, P., Walsh, P.C., Ho, M., Shead, D.A.: Prostate cancer, version 3.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 10(9), 1081–1087 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. Technical report, OMG (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martínez-Salvador, B., Marcos, M., Sánchez, A.: An algorithm for guideline transformation: from BPMN to PROforma. In: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Knowledge Representation for Health Care (KR4HC 2014) (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36(5), 881–897 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mar Marcos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joaquín Torres-Sospedra
    • 2
  • Begoña Martínez-Salvador
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering and Science Universitat Jaume ICastellónSpain
  2. 2.Institute of New Imaging TechnologiesUniversitat Jaume ICastellónSpain

Personalised recommendations