Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Understanding health management and safety decisions using signal processing and machine learning

Authors: Lisa Aufegger, Colin Bicknell, Emma Soane, Hutan Ashrafian, Ara Darzi

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Small group research in healthcare is important because it deals with interaction and decision-making processes that can help to identify and improve safer patient treatment and care. However, the number of studies is limited due to time- and resource-intensive data processing. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of using signal processing and machine learning techniques to understand teamwork and behaviour related to healthcare management and patient safety, and to contribute to literature and research of teamwork in healthcare.

Methods

Clinical and non-clinical healthcare professionals organised into 28 teams took part in a video- and audio-recorded role-play exercise that represented a fictional healthcare system, and included the opportunity to discuss and improve healthcare management and patient safety. Group interactions were analysed using the recurrence quantification analysis (RQA; Knight et al., 2016), a signal processing method that examines stability, determinism, and complexity of group interactions. Data were benchmarked against self-reported quality of team participation and social support. Transcripts of group conversations were explored using the topic modelling approach (Blei et al., 2003), a machine learning method that helps to identify emerging themes within large corpora of qualitative data.

Results

Groups exhibited stable group interactions that were positively correlated with perceived social support, and negatively correlated with predictive behaviour. Data processing of the qualitative data revealed conversations focused on: (1) the management of patient incidents; (2) the responsibilities among team members; (3) the importance of a good internal team environment; and (4) the hospital culture.

Conclusions

This study has shed new light on small group research using signal processing and machine learning methods. Future studies are encouraged to use these methods in the healthcare context, and to conduct further research on how the nature of group interaction and communication processes contribute to the quality of team and task decision-making.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
Literature
1.
2.
Carson JB, Telsuk PE, Marrone JA. Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Acad Manag J. 2007;50(5):1217–34.
3.
Lewis K. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(4):587–604.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire WL. What do we know about health care team effectiveness? A review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(3):263–300.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Kvarnstrom S. Difficulties in collaboration: a critical incident study of interprofessional healthcare teamwork. J Interprof Care. 2008;22(2):191–203.PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
Gersick CJG. Time and transition in work teams. In: Hirokawa R, Cathcart R, Samovar L, Henman L, editors. Small group communication, theory and practice (an anthology), 8th edition. Los Angeles: Roxbury publishing company; 2003. p. 59–75.
8.
Kerr NL, Scott T. Methods of small group research. In: Reis HT, Judd CM, editors. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 188–219.
9.
Kauffeld S, Lehmann-Willenbrock N. Meetings matter: effects of team meatings on team and organizational success. Small Group Res. 2012;43(2):130–58.CrossRef
10.
Tschan F, Semmer NK, Gurtner A, et al. Explicit reasoning, confirmation bias, and illusory transactive memory: a simulation study of group medical decision making. Small Group Res. 2009;40:271–300.CrossRef
11.
12.
Pett MA. Non-parametric statistics for health care research. London: SAGE Publications; 2015.
13.
Bakeman R. Behavioral observation and coding. In: Reis HT, Judd CM, editors. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. New York: Cabridge: University Press; 2000. p. 138–60.
14.
Kenny DA, Mannetti L, Pierro A, et al. The statistical analysis of data from small groups. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83(1):126–37.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Kavoura A, Bitsani E. Methodological considerations for qualitative communication research. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014;147:544–9.CrossRef
16.
Baumeister BF, Vohs KD, Funder DC. Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007;2(4):296–403.CrossRef
17.
Atieno OP. An analysis of the strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st. Century. 2009;13:13–8.
18.
Burgoon JK, Dunbar NE, Giles H. Interaction coordinaton and adaption. In: Burgoon JK, Magnenat-Thalmann N, Pantie M, Vinciarelli A, editors. Social Signal Processing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2017. p. 78–97.CrossRef
19.
Georgiou PG, Black MP, Lammert A, et al. "That’s aggravating, very aggravating": Is it possible to classify behaviors in couple interactions using automatically derived lexical features? Proc Affective Comput Intell Interaction. Memhis, TM. 2011:87–96.
20.
Vinciarelli A, Pantic M, Bourlard H. Social signal processing: survey of an emerging domain. Image Vis Comput. 2009;27(12):1743–59.CrossRef
21.
Alpaydin E. Introduction to machine learning (adaptive computation and machine learning series) London, England: The MIT Press, 2014.
22.
Black MP, Katsamanis A, Baucom BR, et al. Toward automating a human behavioral coding system for married couples’ interactions using speech acoustic features. Speech Comm. 2013;55(1):1–21.CrossRef
23.
Gatica-Perez D, Aran O, Jayapogi D. Analysis of small groups. In: Burgoon JK, Magnenat-Thalmann N, Pantic M, Vinciarelli A, editors. Social Signal Processing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2017. p. 349–68.CrossRef
24.
Marwan N. A historical review of recurrence plots. The European Physical Journal Special Topics. 2008;164(1):3–12.CrossRef
25.
Eckmann JP, Kamphorst SO, Ruelle D. Recurrence plots of dynamical systems. EPL (Europhysics Letters). 1987;4(9):973–7.CrossRef
26.
Webber CL Jr, Zbilut JP. Recurrence quantification analysis of nonlinear dynamical systems. In: Tutorials in contemporary nonlinear methods for the behavioral sciences; 2005. p. 26–94.
27.
Zbilut JP, Thomasson N, Webber CL. Recurrence quantification analysis as a tool for nonlinear exploration of nonstationary cardiac signals. Med Eng Phys. 2002;24:53–60.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Knight AP, Kennedy DM, McComb SA. Using recurrence analysis to examine group dynamics. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract. 2016;20(3):223–41.CrossRef
29.
Mocenni C, Facchini A, Vicino A. Comparison of recurrence quantification methods for the analysis of temporal and spatial chaos. Math Comput Model. 2011;53(7–8):1535–45.CrossRef
30.
Proulx R, Côté P, Parrott L. Use of recurrence analysis to measure the dynamical stability of a multi-species community model. The European Physical Journal Special Topics. 2008;164(1):117–26.CrossRef
31.
Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal. 1948;27:379–423.CrossRef
32.
Shuiabi E, Thomson V, Bhuiyan N. Entropy as a measure of operational flexibility. Eur J Oper Res. 2005;165(3):696–707.CrossRef
33.
Strang AJ, Funke GJ, Russell SM, et al. Physio-behavioral coupling in a cooperative team task: contributors and relations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014;40(1):145–58.PubMedCrossRef
34.
35.
Gorman JC, Cooke NJ, Amazeen PG, et al. Measuring patterns in team interaction sequences using a discrete recurrence approach. Hum Factors. 2012;54(4):503–17.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Wallach HM, Murray I, Salakhutdinov R, et al. Evaluation methods for topic models. In: Danyluk AP, Bottou L, Littman ML, editors. Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning. New York: ACM; 2009. p. 1105–12.
37.
Hu Y, Boyd-Graber J, Satinoff B, et al. Interactive topic modeling. Mach Learn. 2013;95(3):423–69.CrossRef
38.
39.
Ali N, Ibrahim N. Porter stemming algorithm for semantic checking. ICCIT. 2012:253–8.
40.
41.
Asuncion A, W M, Smyth P, et al. On smoothing and inference for topic models. In: Bilmes J, Ng A-Y, editors. Proceedings of the twenty-fifth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Arlington, VA: AUAI press; 2009. p. 27–34.
42.
Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res. 1966;1:629–37.
43.
44.
Steyvers M, Griffiths T. Probabilistic topic models. In: Landauer T, McNamara D, Dennis S, Kintsch W, editors. Latent semantic analysis: A road to meaning: Laurence Erlbaum; 2007.
45.
Chang J, Boyd-Graber J, Gerrish S, et al. Reading tea leaves: how humans interpret topic models. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 21 (NIPS); 2009.
46.
Blei DM, Lafferty JD. A correlated topic model of science. Ann Appl Stat. 2007;1(1):17–35.CrossRef
47.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334.CrossRef
48.
Salas E, DiazGranados D, Weaver SJ, et al. Does team training work? Principles for health care. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(11):1002–9.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Bales RF. Interaction process analysis: a method for the study of small groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1950.
50.
Bales RF. A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. Am Sociol Rev. 1950;15(2):257–63.CrossRef
51.
52.
McLellan E, MacQueen KM, Neidig JL. Beyond the qualitative interview: data preparation and transcription. Field Methods. 2016;15(1):63–84.CrossRef
53.
Marwan N, Carmenromano M, Thiel M, et al. Recurrence plots for the analysis of complex systems. Phys Rep. 2007;438(5–6):237–329.CrossRef
54.
Muth C, Bales KL, Hinde K, et al. Alternative models for small samples in psychological research: applying linear mixed effects models and generalized estimating equations to repeated measures data. Educ Psychol Meas. 2015;76:64–87.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Vagenas D, Totsika V. Modelling correlated data: multilevel models and generalized estimating equations and their use with data from research in developmental disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2018;81:1–11.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Hair JFJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, et al. Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan; 1995.
57.
Yoo W, Mayberry R, Sejong B. A study of effects of multicollinearity in the mulltivariate analysis. International Journal of Applied Science Technology. 2014;4(5):9–19.PubMed
58.
Jayapogi D, Gatica-Perez D. Mining group nonverbal conversational patterns using probabilistic topic model. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia. 2010;12(8):790–802.CrossRef
59.
Waterson P. A critical review of the systems approach within patient safety research. Ergonomics. 2009;52(10):1185–95.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Sujan MA, Huang H, Braithwaite J. Learning from incidents in health care: critique from a safety-II perspective. Saf Sci. 2017;99(Part A:115–21.CrossRef
61.
Salas E, Shuffler ML, Thayer AL, et al. Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: a scientifically based practical guide. Hum Resour Manag. 2015;54(4):599–622.CrossRef
62.
Blei DM, Jordan M, Griffin KL, et al. Hierarchical topic models and the nested chinese restaurant process. Adv Neural Inf Proces Syst. 2003;40(5):621–36.
63.
Wang X, McCallum A. Topics over time: A non-Markov continuous-time model of topical trends. KDD '06 proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. Philadelphia, PA: USA; 2006. p. 424–33.
64.
Rosen-Zvi M, Griffiths T, Steyvers M, et al. The author-topic model for authors and documents. UAI '04 proceedings of the 20th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Canada: Banff; 2004. p. 487–94.
Metadata
Title
Understanding health management and safety decisions using signal processing and machine learning
Authors
Lisa Aufegger
Colin Bicknell
Emma Soane
Hutan Ashrafian
Ara Darzi
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0756-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Methods to increase response rates to a population-based maternity survey: a comparison of two pilot studies

Database

Veterans Affairs patient database (VAPD 2014–2017): building nationwide granular data for clinical discovery

Technical advance

Bayes factors for superiority, non-inferiority, and equivalence designs

Research article

Methodology and reporting characteristics of studies using interrupted time series design in healthcare

Software

Development of an interactive web-based tool to conduct and interrogate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: MetaDTA

Research article

Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience