Advertisement

Mining Process Execution and Outcomes – Position Paper

  • Mor Peleg
  • Pnina Soffer
  • Johny Ghattas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4928)

Abstract

Organizational processes in general and patient-care processes in particular, change over time. This may be in response to situations unpredicted by a predefined business process model (or clinical guideline), or as a result of new knowledge which has not yet been incorporated into the model. Process mining techniques enable capturing process changes, evaluating the gaps between the predefined model and the practiced process, and modifying the model accordingly. This position paper motivates the extension of process mining in order to capture not only deviations from the process model, but also the outcomes associated with them (e.g., patient improving or deteriorating). These should be taken into account when modifications to the process are made.

Keywords

Process mining business process modeling Clinical guidelines 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Peleg, M., et al.: Comparing Computer-Interpretable Guideline Models: A Case-Study Approach. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 10(1), 52–68 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garg, A.X., et al.: Effects of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review. JAMA 293(10), 1223–1238 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dongen, B.F., Herbst, J.L., Maruster, L., Schimm, G., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Workflow Mining: A Survey of Issues and Approaches. Data and Knowledge Engineering 47(2), 237–267 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPT-flex: supporting dynamic changes of workflows without loosing control. JIIS 10(2), 93–129 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller, P.L.: Goal-directed critiquing by computer: ventilator management. Comput. Biomed. Res. 18(5), 422–438 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gertner, A.S.: Plan Recognition and Evaluation for On-line Critiquing. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 7(2), 107–140 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Advani, A., Goldstein, M., Shahar, Y., Musen, M.A.: Developing Quality Indicators and Auditing Protocols from Formal Guideline Models. In: AMIA Annual Symp., pp. 11–15 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quaglini, S., et al.: Flexible Guideline-based Patient Careflow Systems. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 22, 65–80 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peleg, M.: Guideline and Workflow Models. In: Greenes, R.A. (ed.) Clinical Decision Support - The Road Ahead, Elsevier/Academic Press (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peleg, M., Kantor, R.: Approaches for guideline versioning using GLIF. In: Proc. AMIA Symp., pp. 509–513 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Soffer, P., Wand, Y.: Goal-driven Analysis of Process Model Validity. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3084, pp. 521–535. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soffer, P., Wand, Y.: On the Notion of Soft Goals in Business Process Modeling. Business Process Management Journal 11(6), 663–679 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peterson, J.L.: Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1981)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Diagnosis and Treatment of Otitis Media in Children (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peleg, M., Tu, S., Mahindroo, A., Altman, R.: Modeling and Analyzing Biomedical. In: Processes using Workflow/Petri Net Models and Tools. MedInfo., pp. 74–78 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mor Peleg
    • 1
  • Pnina Soffer
    • 1
  • Johny Ghattas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management Information SystemsUniversity of HaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations