Abstract
Purpose
Overcoming the flaws of current data management conditions in head and neck oncology could enable integrated information systems specifically tailored to the needs of medical experts in a tumor board meeting. Clinical dashboards are a promising method to assist various aspects of the decision-making process in such cognitively demanding scenarios. However, in order to provide extensive and intuitive assistance to the participating physicians, the design and development of such a system have to be user-centric. To accomplish this task, conceptual methods need to be performed prior to the technical development and integration stages.
Methods
We have conducted a qualitative survey including eight clinical experts with different levels of expertise in the field of head and neck oncology. According to the principles of information architecture, the survey focused on the identification and causal interconnection of necessary metrics for information assessment in the tumor board.
Results
Based on the feedback by the clinical experts, we have constructed a detailed map of the required information items for a tumor board dashboard in head and neck oncology. Furthermore, we have identified three distinct groups of metrics (patient, disease and therapy metrics) as well as specific recommendations for their structural and graphical implementation.
Conclusion
By using the information architecture, we were able to gather valuable feedback about the requirements and cognitive processes of the tumor board members. Those insights have helped us to develop a dashboard application that closely adapts to the specified needs and characteristics, and thus is primarily user-centric.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Murdoch TB, Detsky AS (2013) The inevitable application of big data to health care. JAMA 309(13):1351–1352
Knaup P, Harkener S, Ellsaesser KH, Haux R, Wiedemann T (2001) On the necessity of systematically planning clinical tumor documentation. Methods Inf Med 40(2):90–98
Gaebel J, Cypko MA, Lemke HU (2016) Accessing patient information for probabilistic patient models using existing standards. Stud Health Technol Inform 223:107–112
Dowding D, Randell R, Gardner P, Fitzpatrick G, Dykes P, Favela J, Hamer S, Whitewood-Moores Z, Hardiker N, Borycki Currie L (2015) Dashboards for improving patient care: review of the literature. Int J Med Inform 84(2):87–100
Meier J, Boehm A, Kielhorn A, Dietz A, Bohn S, Neumuth T (2014) Design and evaluation of a multimedia electronic patient record “oncoflow” with clinical workflow assistance for head and neck tumor therapy. Int J CARS 9(6):949–965
Gaebel J, Cypko MA, Oeltze-Jafra S (2017) Considering information up-to-dateness to increase the accuracy of therapy decision support systems. Stud Health Technol Inform 243:217–221
Stadler JG, Donlon K, Siewert JD, Franken T, Lewis NE (2016) Improving the efficiency and ease of healthcare analysis through use of data visualization dashboards. Big Data 4(2):129–135
Halford GS, Baker R, McCredden JE, Bain JD (2005) How many variables can humans process? Psychol Sci 16(1):70–76
Shneiderman B (1996) The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Proceedings 1996 IEEE symposium on visual languages, pp 336–343
Few S (2006) Information dashboard design: the effective visual communication of data. O’Reilly & Associates, Cambridge (MA)
Pauwels K, Ambler T, Clark B, LaPointe P, Reibstein D, Skiera B, Wierenga B, Wiesel T (2009) Dashboards as a service?: Why, what, how, and what research is needed? J Serv Res 12:175–189
Daley K, Richardson J, James I, Chambers A, Corbett D (2013) Clinical dashboard: use in older adult mental health wards. Psychiatr Online 37(3):85–88
Toms EG (2002) Information interaction: providing a framework for information architecture. J Am Soc Inf Sci 53(10):855–862
Karami M, Langarizadeh M, Fatehi M (2017) Evaluation of effective dashboards: key concepts and criteria. Open Med Inform J 11:52–57
Batley NJ, Osman HO, Kazzi AA, Musallam KM (2011) Implementation of an emergency department computer system: design features that users value. J Emerg Med 41(6):693–700
Morgan MB, Branstetter BF, Lionetti DM, Richardson JS, Chang PJ (2008) The radiology digital dashboard: effects on report turnaround time. J Digit Imaging 21(1):50–58
Dolan JG, Veazie PJ, Russ AJ (2013) Development and initial evaluation of a treatment decision dashboard. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:51
Roche. NAVIFY\(^{{\rm TM}}\) Tumor Board solution—Roche diagnostics information solutions [Internet]. Navify\(^{{\rm TM}}\) Tumor Board. [cited 8th January 2018]. https://www.navify.com/tumorboard/
Cypko MA, Wojdziak J, Stoehr M, Kirchner B, Preim B, Dietz A, Lemke HU, Oeltze-Jafra S (2017) Visual verification of cancer staging for therapy decision support. Comput Graph Forum 36(3):109–120
Cypko MA, Stoehr M, Kozniewski M, Druzdzel MJ, Dietz A, Berliner L, Lemke HU (2017) Validation workflow for a clinical Bayesian network model in multidisciplinary decision making in head and neck oncology treatment. Int J CARS 12(11):1959–1970
Lam H, Bertini E, Isenberg P, Plaisant C, Carpendale S (2012) Empirical studies in information visualization: seven scenarios. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 18(9):1520–1536
Isenberg T, Isenberg P, Chen J, Sedlmair M, Moller T (2013) A systematic review on the practice of evaluating visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 19(12):2818–2827
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank M. Stöhr, V. Zebralla and J. Müller for their valuable comments and suggestions in regard to this paper.
Funding
This project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the scope of the program “Entrepreneurial Regions” with Grant Number 03Z1LN11. The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
This article does not contain patient information.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oeser, A., Gaebel, J., Dietz, A. et al. Information architecture for a patient-specific dashboard in head and neck tumor boards. Int J CARS 13, 1283–1290 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1741-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1741-7