Governance and compliance of health care networks gain more and more attention in the IS research. The configuration of medical care workflow systems and the compliance check of care processes according to national and international guidelines is the motivation for this paper. We are following a process model based approach for the management of health care networks. We present a service-based method for the compliance check of process models and enable a configuration of information systems with process models. The application of the method as well as the discussion of the practical benefits is illustrated by a real world case.


Conceptual Models Vertical Integration Conflict Management Health Care Network Service-oriented method Care process compliance 


  1. Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.B.: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 18(4), 364 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beimborn, D., et al.: Die Bedeutung des Alignment von IT und Fachressourcen in Finanzprozessen Eine empirische Untersuchung. Wirtschaftsinformatik 48(5), 331–339 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Pfeiffer, D., Becker, J.: Solving the conflicts of distributed process modelling - towards an integrated approach. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2008), Galway, Ireland (2008)Google Scholar
  4. Dijkman, R.: Diagnosing differences between business process models. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 261–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frank, U.: Conceptual modelling as the core of the information systems discipline-perspectives and epistemological challenges. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 1999), pp. 13–15 (August 1999)Google Scholar
  6. Hars, A.: Referenzdatenmodelle. Gabler, Wiesbaden (1994)Google Scholar
  7. Hevner, A.R., et al.: Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly 28(1), 75–106 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. Holenstein, E.: On the cognitive underpinnings of language. Semiotica 41(1-4), 107–134 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kashyap, V., Sheth, A.: Semantic and schematic similarities between database objects: a context-based approach. The VLDB Journal 5(4), 276–304 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Katona, G.: Psychologie der Relationserfassung und des Vergleichens, Johann Ambrosius Barth (1924)Google Scholar
  11. Kaveh, D., et al.: How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A Survival Analysis. Anal. of Internal Medicine 147(4), 224–233 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. Kolominsky-Rabas, P.L., et al.: Lifetime Cost of Ischemic Stroke in Germany: Results and National Projections From a Population-Based Stroke Registry: The Erlangen Stroke Project. Stroke 37(5), 1179–1183 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lelgemann, M., Ollenschläger, G.: Evidenzbasierte Leitlinien und Behandlungspfade. Der Internist 47(7), 690–698 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mertens, P.: Die zwischenbetriebliche Kooperation und Integration bei der automatisierten Datenverarbeitung. Hain, Meisenheim am Glan (1966)Google Scholar
  15. Peffers, K., et al.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Peleg, M., et al.: Comparing Computer-interpretable Guideline Models: A Case-study Approach. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 10(1), 52–68 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pfeiffer, D., Becker, J.: Semantic business process analysis: building block-based construction of automatically analyzable business process models, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität (2008)Google Scholar
  18. Pfeiffer, D., Gehlert, A.: A framework for comparing conceptual models. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2005), pp. 108–122 (2005) Google Scholar
  19. Rosemann, M.: Komplexitätsmanagement in Prozeßmodellen. Gabler, Wiesbaden (2002)Google Scholar
  20. Rotter, T., et al.: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of clinical pathways on length of stay, hospital costs and patient outcomes. BMC Health Services Research 8(1), 265 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Schlieter, H., Esswein, W.: From Clinical Practice Guideline to Clinical Pathway - Issues of Reference Model-Based Approach. In: Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Boucher, X., Afsarmanesh, H. (eds.) PRO-VE 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 336, pp. 251–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schnabel, M., et al.: Von der Leitlinie zum Behandlungspfad. Der Chirurg 74(12), 1156–1166 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seyfang, A., Miksch, S.: Modelling Diagnosis and Treatment. International Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 1 (2007) Google Scholar
  24. Sinz, E.J.: Architektur von Informationssystemen. In: Rechenberg, P., Pomberger, G. (eds.) Informatik-Handbuch, pp. 1035–1046. Hanser, München (1999)Google Scholar
  25. Wittgenstein, L.: Tractatus logico-philosophicus: philosophische Untersuchungen. Reclam-Verlag, Leipzig (1922)Google Scholar
  26. Wollersheim, H., Burgers, J., Grol, R.: Clinical guidelines to improve patient care. The Netherlands Journal of Medicine 63(6), 188–192 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. Yin, R.K.: Applications of case study research. SAGE, London (2003)Google Scholar
  28. Yu, E.: i* an agent oriented modeling framework, Toronto (2011), (download: 16.04.2011)

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannes Schlieter
    • 1
  • Stephan Bögel
    • 2
  • Werner Esswein
    • 1
  1. 1.Münchener PlatzTU DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Virtimo AGBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations