Aziz A. Boxwala

GLIF3: a representation format for sharable computer-interpretable clinical practice guidelines

The Guideline Interchange Format (GLIF) is a model for representation of sharable computer-interpretable guidelines. The current version of GLIF (GLIF3) is a substantial update and enhancement of the model since the previous version (GLIF2). GLIF3 enables encoding of a guideline at three levels: a conceptual flowchart, a computable specification that can be verified for logical consistency and completeness, and an implementable specification that is intended to be incorporated into particular institutional information systems. The representation has been tested on a wide variety of guidelines that are typical of the range of guidelines in clinical use. It builds upon GLIF2 by adding several constructs that enable interpretation of encoded guidelines in computer-based decision-support systems. GLIF3 leverages standards being developed in Health Level 7 in order to allow integration of guidelines with clinical information systems. The GLIF3 specification consists of an extensible object-oriented model and a structured syntax based on the resource description framework (RDF). Empirical validation of the ability to generate appropriate recommendations using GLIF3 has been tested by executing encoded guidelines against actual patient data. GLIF3 is accordingly ready for broader experimentation and prototype use by organizations that wish to evaluate its ability to capture the logic of clinical guidelines, to implement them in clinical systems, and thereby to provide integrated decision support to assist clinicians.

Representation primitives, process models and patient data in computer-interpretable clinical practice guidelines: a literature review of guideline representation models.

Representation of clinical practice guidelines in a computer-interpretable format is a critical issue for guideline development, implementation, and evaluation. We studied 11 types of guideline representation models that can be used to encode guidelines in computer-interpretable formats. We have consistently found in all reviewed models that primitives for representation of actions and decisions are necessary components of a guideline representation model. Patient states and execution states are important concepts that closely relate to each other. Scheduling constraints on representation primitives can be modeled as sequences, concurrences, alternatives, and loops in a guidelines application process. Nesting of guidelines provides multiple views to a guideline with different granularities. Integration of guidelines with electronic medical records can be facilitated by the introduction of a formal model for patient data. Data collection, decision, patient state, and intervention constitute four basic types of primitives in a guidelines logic flow. Decisions clarify our understanding on a patients clinical state, while interventions lead to the change from one patient state to another.

iDASH: integrating data for analysis, anonymization, and sharing

iDASH (integrating data for analysis, anonymization, and sharing) is the newest National Center for Biomedical Computing funded by the NIH. It focuses on algorithms and tools for sharing data in a privacy-preserving manner. Foundational privacy technology research performed within iDASH is coupled with innovative engineering for collaborative tool development and data-sharing capabilities in a private Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-certified cloud. Driving Biological Projects, which span different biological levels (from molecules to individuals to populations) and focus on various health conditions, help guide research and development within this Center. Furthermore, training and dissemination efforts connect the Center with its stakeholders and educate data owners and data consumers on how to share and use clinical and biological data. Through these various mechanisms, iDASH implements its goal of providing biomedical and behavioral researchers with access to data, software, and a high-performance computing environment, thus enabling them to generate and test new hypotheses.

Description and status update on GELLO: a proposed standardized object-oriented expression language for clinical decision support.

A major obstacle to sharing computable clinical knowledge is the lack of a common language for specifying expressions and criteria. Such a language could be used to specify decision criteria, formulae, and constraints on data and action. Al-though the Arden Syntax addresses this problem for clinical rules, its generalization to HL7s object-oriented data model is limited. The GELLO Expression language is an object-oriented language used for expressing logical conditions and computations in the GLIF3 (GuideLine Interchange Format, v. 3) guideline modeling language. It has been further developed under the auspices of the HL7 Clinical Decision Support Technical Committee, as a proposed HL7 standard., GELLO is based on the Object Constraint Language (OCL), because it is vendor-independent, object-oriented, and side-effect-free. GELLO expects an object-oriented data model. Although choice of model is arbitrary, standardization is facilitated by ensuring that the data model is compatible with the HL7 Reference Information Model (RIM).

Using statistical and machine learning to help institutions detect suspicious access to electronic health records.

Objective To determine whether statistical and machine-learning methods, when applied to electronic health record (EHR) access data, could help identify suspicious (ie, potentially inappropriate) access to EHRs. Methods From EHR access logs and other organizational data collected over a 2-month period, the authors extracted 26 features likely to be useful in detecting suspicious accesses. Selected events were marked as either suspicious or appropriate by privacy officers, and served as the gold standard set for model evaluation. The authors trained logistic regression (LR) and support vector machine (SVM) models on 10-fold cross-validation sets of 1291 labeled events. The authors evaluated the sensitivity of final models on an external set of 58 events that were identified as truly inappropriate and investigated independently from this study using standard operating procedures. Results The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the models on the whole data set of 1291 events was 0.91 for LR, and 0.95 for SVM. The sensitivity of the baseline model on this set was 0.8. When the final models were evaluated on the set of 58 investigated events, all of which were determined as truly inappropriate, the sensitivity was 0 for the baseline method, 0.76 for LR, and 0.79 for SVM. Limitations The LR and SVM models may not generalize because of interinstitutional differences in organizational structures, applications, and workflows. Nevertheless, our approach for constructing the models using statistical and machine-learning techniques can be generalized. An important limitation is the relatively small sample used for the training set due to the effort required for its construction. Conclusion The results suggest that statistical and machine-learning methods can play an important role in helping privacy officers detect suspicious accesses to EHRs.

Regular ArticleSharable Representation of Clinical Guidelines in GLIF: Relationship to the Arden Syntax

Clinical guidelines are intended to improve the quality and cost effectiveness of patient care. Integration of guidelines into electronic medical records and order-entry systems, in a way that enables delivery of patient-specific advice at the point of care, is likely to encourage guidelines acceptance and effectiveness. Among the methodologies for modeling guidelines and medical decision rules, the Arden Syntax for Medical Logic Modules and the GuideLine Interchange Format version 3 (GLIF3) emphasize the importance of sharing encoded logic across different medical institutions and implementation platforms. These two methodologies have similarities and differences; in this paper we clarify their roles. Both methods can be used to support sharing of medical knowledge, but they do so in complementary situations. The Arden Syntax is suitable for representing individual decision rules in self-contained units called Medical Logic Modules (MLMs), which are usually implemented as event-driven alerts or reminders. In contrast, GLIF3 is designed for encoding complex multistep guidelines that unfold over time. As a consequence, GLIF3 has several mechanisms for complexity management and additional constructs that may require overhead unnecessary for expressing simple alerts and reminders. Unlike the Arden Syntax, GLIF3 encourages a top-down process of guideline modeling consisting of three levels that are created in order: Level 1 comprises a human-readable flowchart of clinical decisions and actions. Level 2 comprises a computable specification that can be verified for logical consistency and completeness; and Level 3 comprises an implementable specification that includes information required for local adaptation of guideline logic as well as for mapping guideline variables onto institutional medical records. A major emphasis of the current GLIF3 development process has been to create the computable specification that formally represents medical decision and eligibility criteria. We based GLIF3s formal expression language on the Arden Syntaxs logic grammar, making the necessary extensions to the Arden Syntaxs data structures and operators to support GLIF3s object-oriented data model. We discuss why the process of generating a set of MLMs from a GLIF-encoded guideline cannot be automated, why it can result in information loss, and why simple medical rules are best represented as individual MLMs. We thus show that the Arden Syntax and GLIF3 play complementary roles in representing medical knowledge for clinical decision support.

Sharable Representation of Clinical Guidelines in GLIF

Clinical guidelines are intended to improve the quality and cost effectiveness of patient care. Integration of guidelines into electronic medical records and order-entry systems, in a way that enables delivery of patient-specific advice at the point of care, is likely to encourage guidelines acceptance and effectiveness. Among the methodologies for modeling guidelines and medical decision rules, the Arden Syntax for Medical Logic Modules and the GuideLine Interchange Format version 3 (GLIF3) emphasize the importance of sharing encoded logic across different medical institutions and implementation platforms. These two methodologies have similarities and differences; in this paper we clarify their roles. Both methods can be used to support sharing of medical knowledge, but they do so in complementary situations. The Arden Syntax is suitable for representing individual decision rules in self-contained units called Medical Logic Modules (MLMs), which are usually implemented as event-driven alerts or reminders. In contrast, GLIF3 is designed for encoding complex multistep guidelines that unfold over time. As a consequence, GLIF3 has several mechanisms for complexity management and additional constructs that may require overhead unnecessary for expressing simple alerts and reminders. Unlike the Arden Syntax, GLIF3 encourages a top-down process of guideline modeling consisting of three levels that are created in order: Level 1 comprises a human-readable flowchart of clinical decisions and actions. Level 2 comprises a computable specification that can be verified for logical consistency and completeness; and Level 3 comprises an implementable specification that includes information required for local adaptation of guideline logic as well as for mapping guideline variables onto institutional medical records. A major emphasis of the current GLIF3 development process has been to create the computable specification that formally represents medical decision and eligibility criteria. We based GLIF3s formal expression language on the Arden Syntaxs logic grammar, making the necessary extensions to the Arden Syntaxs data structures and operators to support GLIF3s object-oriented data model. We discuss why the process of generating a set of MLMs from a GLIF-encoded guideline cannot be automated, why it can result in information loss, and why simple medical rules are best represented as individual MLMs. We thus show that the Arden Syntax and GLIF3 play complementary roles in representing medical knowledge for clinical decision support.

Toward a Representation Format for Sharable Clinical Guidelines

Clinical guidelines are being developed for the purpose of reducing medical errors and unjustified variations in medical practice, and for basing medical practice on evidence. Encoding guidelines in a computer-interpretable format and integrating them with the electronic medical record can enable delivery of patient-specific recommendations when and where needed. Since great effort must be expended in developing high-quality guidelines, and in making them computer-interpretable, it is highly desirable to be able to share computer-interpretable guidelines (CIGs) among institutions. Adoption of a common format for representing CIGs is one approach to sharing. Factors that need to be considered in creating a format for sharable CIGs include (i) the scope of guidelines and their intended applications, (ii) the method of delivery of the recommendations, and (iii) the environment, consisting of the practice setting and the information system in which the guidelines will be applied. Several investigators have proposed solutions that improve the sharability of CIGs and, more generally, of medical knowledge. These approaches can be useful in the development of a format for sharable CIGs. Challenges in sharing CIGs also include the need to extend the traditional framework for disseminating guidelines to enable them to be integrated into practice. These extensions include processes for (i) local adaptation of recommendations encoded in shared generic guidelines and (ii) integration of guidelines into the institutional information systems.

Organization and Representation of Patient Safety Data: Current Status and Issues around Generalizability and Scalability

Recent reports have identified medical errors as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among patients. A variety of approaches have been implemented to identify errors and their causes. These approaches include retrospective reporting and investigation of errors and adverse events and prospective analyses for identifying hazardous situations. The above approaches, along with other sources, contribute to data that are used to analyze patient safety risks. A variety of data structures and terminologies have been created to represent the information contained in these sources of patient safety data. Whereas many representations may be well suited to the particular safety application for which they were developed, such application-specific and often organization-specific representations limit the sharability of patient safety data. The result is that aggregation and comparison of safety data across organizations, practice domains, and applications is difficult at best. A common reference data model and a broadly applicable terminology for patient safety data are needed to aggregate safety data at the regional and national level and conduct large-scale studies of patient safety risks and interventions.

Sharable Computer-based Clinical Practice Guidelines: Rationale, Obstacles, Approaches, and Prospects

Clinical practice guideline automation at the point of care is of growing interest, yet most guidelines are authored in unstructured narrative form. Computer-based execution depends on a formal structured representation, and also faces a number of other challenges at all stages of the guideline lifecycle: modeling, authoring, dissemination, implementation, and update. This is because of the multiplicity of conceptual models, authoring tools, authoring approaches, intended applications, implementation platforms, and local interface requirements and operational constraints. Complexity and time required for development and structure are also huge obstacles. These factors argue for convergence on a common shared model for representation that can be the basis of dissemination. A common model would facilitate direct interpretation or mapping to multiple implementation environments. GLIF (GuideLine Interchange Format) is a formal representation model for guidelines, created by the InterMed Collaboratory as a proposed basis for a shared representation. GLIF currently addresses the process of authoring and dissemination; the InterMed teams major focus now is on tools to facilitate these tasks and the mapping to clinical information system environments. Because of limitations in what can be done by a single team with finite resources, however, and the variety of additional perspectives that need to be accommodated, the InterMed team has determined that further development of a shared representation would be best served as an open process in which the world community is engaged. Under the auspices of the HL7 Decision Support Technical Committee, a GLIF Special Interest Group has been established, which is intended to be a forum for collaborative refinement and extension of a standard representation that can support the needs of the guideline lifecycle. Significant areas for future work will need to include demonstrations of effective means for incorporating guide-lines at point of care, reconciliation of functional requirements of different models and identification of those most important for supporting practical implementation, im-proved means for authoring and management of complexity, and methods for automatically analyzing and validating syntax, semantics, and logical consistency of guidelines.