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 Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Patient facing decision support system for interpretation of laboratory test results

Authors: Georgy Kopanitsa, Ilia Semenov

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In some healthcare systems, it is common that patients address laboratory test centers directly without a physician’s recommendation. This practice is widely spread in Russia with about 28% of patients who visiting laboratory test centers for diagnostics. This causes an issue when patients get no help from the physician in understanding the results.
Computer decision support systems proved to efficiently solve a resource consuming task of interpretation of the test results. So, a decision support system can be implemented to rise motivation and empower the patients who visit a laboratory service without a doctor’s referral.

Methods

We have developed a clinical decision support system for patients that solves a classification task and finds a set of diagnoses for the provided laboratory tests results.
The Wilson and Lankton’s assessment model was applied to measure patients’ acceptance of the solution.

Results

A first order predicates-based decision support system has been implemented to analyze laboratory test results and deliver reports in natural language to patients. The evaluation of the system showed a high acceptance of the decision support system and of the reports that it generates.

Conclusions

Detailed notification of the laboratory service patients with elements of the decision support is significant for the laboratory data management, and for patients’ empowerment and safety.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Semenov I, Kopanitsa G. Development of a clinical decision support system for the patients of a laboratory service. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;228:90–4.PubMed
2.
3.
Ahmadian L, van Engen-Verheul M, Bakhshi-Raiez F, et al. The role of standardized data and terminological systems in computerized clinical decision support systems: literature review and survey. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80:81–93.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Kopanitsa G. Standard based multiclient medical data visualization. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;180:199–203.PubMed
6.
Kopanitsa G. Evaluation study for a multi-user oriented medical data visualization method. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;200:158–60.PubMed
7.
Kopanitsa G, Tsvetkova Z, Veseli H. Analysis of metrics for the usability evaluation of EHR management systems. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;180:358–62.PubMed
8.
Kopanitsa G, Tsvetkova Z, Veseli H. Analysis of metrics for the usability evaluation of electronic health record systems. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;174:129–33.PubMed
9.
Lin YL, Guerguerian AM, Tomasi J, et al. Usability of data integration and visualization software for multidisciplinary pediatric intensive care: a human factors approach to assessing technology. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17:122.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Skyttberg N, Vicente J, Chen R, et al. How to improve vital sign data quality for use in clinical decision support systems? A qualitative study in nine Swedish emergency departments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16
11.
Madkour M, Benhaddou D, Tao C. Temporal data representation, normalization, extraction, and reasoning: a review from clinical domain. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2016;128:52–68.CrossRef
12.
Murff HJ, Gandhi TK, Karson AK, et al. Primary care physician attitudes concerning follow-up of abnormal test results and ambulatory decision support systems. Int J Med Inform. 2003;71:137–49.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Poon EG, Gandhi TK, Sequist TD, et al. "I wish I had seen this test result earlier!": dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2223–8.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Montes A, Francis M, Ciulla AP. Assessing the delivery of patient critical laboratory results to primary care providers. Clin Lab Sci. 2014;27:139–42.PubMed
15.
Litchfield IJ, Bentham LM, Lilford RJ, et al. Adaption, implementation and evaluation of collaborative service improvements in the testing and result communication process in primary care from patient and staff perspectives: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:615.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Casalino LP, Dunham D, Chin MH, et al. Frequency of failure to inform patients of clinically significant outpatient test results. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1123–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Sung S, Forman-Hoffman V, Wilson MC, Cram P. Direct reporting of laboratory test results to patients by mail to enhance patient safety. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:1075–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Matheny ME, Gandhi TK, Orav EJ, et al. Impact of an automated test results management system on patients' satisfaction about test result communication. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:2233–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Laxmisan A, Sittig DF, Pietz K, et al. Effectiveness of an electronic health record-based intervention to improve follow-up of abnormal pathology results: a retrospective record analysis. Med Care. 2012;50:898–904.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Edmonds SW, Wolinsky FD, Christensen AJ, et al. The PAADRN study: a design for a randomized controlled practical clinical trial to improve bone health. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34:90–100.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Main C, Moxham T, Wyatt JC, et al. Computerised decision support systems in order communication for diagnostic, screening or monitoring test ordering: systematic reviews of the effects and cost-effectiveness of systems. England: NHS R & D HTA Programme (Great Britain); National Co-ordinating Centre for HTA (Great Britain), NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme; 2010. p. 1–227.
22.
Carmona-Cejudo JM, Hortas ML, Baena-García M, et al. DB4US: a decision support system for laboratory information management. Interact J Med Res. 2012;1:e16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Sepulveda JL, Young DS, Carmona-Cejudo JM, et al. The ideal laboratory information system DB4US: A decision support system for laboratory information management. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:1129–40.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Wald JS, Burk K, Gardner K, et al. Sharing electronic laboratory results in a patient portal--a feasibility pilot. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129:18–22.PubMed
25.
Haeckel R, Wosniok W, Arzideh F. Proposed classification of various limit values (guide values) used in assisting the interpretation of quantitative laboratory test results. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2009;47:494–7.PubMed
26.
Romatowski J. Problems in interpretation of clinical laboratory test results. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994;205:1186–8.PubMed
27.
Michalski RS. Pattern recognition as rule-guided inductive inference. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1980;2:349–61.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kawada T. Sample size in receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Circ J. 2012;76:768. author reply 769CrossRefPubMed
29.
Berry KJ, Johnston JE, Mielke PW, Jr. Weighted kappa for multiple raters. Percept Mot Skills 2008; 107: 837–848.
30.
31.
Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci. 1989;35:982–1003.CrossRef
32.
Drinkwater BL. A comparison of the direction-of-perception technique with the Likert method in the measurement of attitudes. J Soc Psychol. 1965;67:189–96.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Rogel-Salazar J. Essential MATLAB and octave. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, CRC Press; 2015.
34.
HM RW. Applying the four-eyes principle to management decisions in the manufacturing sector: are large family firms one-eye blind? Manag Res Rev. 2015;38:264–82.CrossRef
35.
Kuo KM, Liu CF, Ma CC. An investigation of the effect of nurses' technology readiness on the acceptance of mobile electronic medical record systems. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Chen IJ, Yang KF, Tang FI, et al. Applying the technology acceptance model to explore public health nurses' intentions towards web-based learning: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;45:869–78.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Guo SH, Lin YH, Chen RR, et al. Development and evaluation of theory-based diabetes support services. Comput Inform Nurs. 2013;31:17–26. quiz 27–18CrossRefPubMed
38.
Vallance JK, Courneya KS, Taylor LM, et al. Development and evaluation of a theory-based physical activity guidebook for breast cancer survivors. Health Educ Behav. 2008;35:174–89.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Campbell L, Watkins RM, Teasdale C. Communicating the result of breast biopsy by telephone or in person. Br J Surg. 1997;84:1381.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Baldwin DM, Quintela J, Duclos C, et al. Patient preferences for notification of normal laboratory test results: a report from the ASIPS collaborative. BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Callen JL, Westbrook JI, Georgiou A, Li J. Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1334–48.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Semenov I, Kopanitsa G, Karpov A, et al. Implementation of a clinical decision support system for interpretation of laboratory tests for patients. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;224:184–8.PubMed
43.
Boegl K, Adlassnig KP, Hayashi Y, et al. Knowledge acquisition in the fuzzy knowledge representation framework of a medical consultation system. Artif Intell Med. 2004;30:1–26.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient facing decision support system for interpretation of laboratory test results
Authors
Georgy Kopanitsa
Ilia Semenov
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0648-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Are publicly available internet resources enabling women to make informed fertility preservation decisions before starting cancer treatment: an environmental scan?

Research article

Evidence-based usability design principles for medication alerting systems

Research article

A comparative study of logistic regression based machine learning techniques for prediction of early virological suppression in antiretroviral initiating HIV patients

Research article

Neuropsychological predictors of conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease: a feature selection ensemble combining stability and predictability

Technical advance

Designing mHealth for maternity services in primary health facilities in a low-income setting – lessons from a partially successful implementation

Research article

Length of time periods in treatment effect descriptions and willingness to initiate preventive therapy: a randomised survey experiment