skip to main content
10.1145/1882992.1883037acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Experience modeling and analyzing medical processes: UMass/baystate medical safety project overview

Published: 11 November 2010 Publication History

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the UMass/Baystate Medical Safety project, which has been developing and evaluating tools and technology for modeling and analyzing medical processes. We describe the tools that currently comprise the Process Improvement Environment, PIE. For each tool, we illustrate the kinds of information that it provides and discuss how that information can be used to improve the modeled process as well as provide useful information that other tools in the environment can leverage. Because the process modeling notation that we use has rigorously defined semantics and supports creating relatively detailed process models (for example, our models can specify alternative ways of dealing with exceptional behavior and concurrency), a number of powerful analysis techniques can be applied. The cost of eliciting and maintaining such a detailed model is amortized over the range of analyses that can be applied to detect errors, vulnerabilities, and inefficiencies in an existing process or in proposed process modifications before they are deployed.

References

[1]
A. G Cass, B. S. Lerner, S. M. Sutton, Jr, et al. Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreter. In 22nd Intl. Conf. on Softw. Eng., p. 754--757, 2000.
[2]
B. Chen, G. S. Avrunin, E. A. Henneman, et al. Analyzing medical processes. In 30th Intl. Conf. on Softw. Eng., p. 623--632, 2008.
[3]
S. Christov, B. Chen, G. S. Avrunin, et al. Formally defining medical processes. Methods of Information in Medicine. Special Topic on Model-Based Design of Trustworthy Health Information Systems, 47(5): 392--398, 2008.
[4]
S. Christov, B. Chen, G. S. Avrunin, et al. Rigorously defining and analyzing medical processes: An experience report. Models in Softw. Eng.: Wkshps and Symposia at MoDELS 2007, Reports and Revised Selected Papers, p. 118--131, 2008.
[5]
S. C. Christov, G. S. Avrunin, L. A. Clarke, et al. A benchmark for evaluating software engineering techniques for improving medical processes. In Intl. Conf. on Softw. Eng., Wkshp. on Softw. Eng. in Health Care, 2010.
[6]
R. L. Cobleigh, G. S. Avrunin, and L. A. Clarke. User guidance for creating precise and accessible property specifications. In 14th ACM SIGSOFT Intl. Symposium on Foundations of Softw. Eng., p. 208--218, 2006.
[7]
C. Damas, B. Lambeau, F. Roucoux, et al. Analyzing critical process models through behavior model synthesis. In 31st Intl. Conf. on Softw. Eng., p. 441--451, 2009.
[8]
W. E. Deming. Out of the Crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1982.
[9]
M. B. Dwyer, G. S. Avrunin, and J. C. Corbett. Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In 21st Intl. Conf. on Softw. Eng., p. 411--420, 1999.
[10]
M. B. Dwyer, L. A. Clarke, J. M. Cobleigh, et al. Flow analysis for verifying properties of concurrent software systems. ACM Transactions on Softw. Eng. and Methodology, 13(4): 359--430, 2004.
[11]
E. A. Henneman, G. S. Avrunin, L. A. Clarke, et al. Increasing patient safety and efficiency in transfusion therapy using formal process definitions. Transfusion Medicine Review, 21(1): 49--57, 2007.
[12]
E. A. Henneman, R. Cobleigh, G. S. Avrunin, et al. Designing property specifications to improve the safety of the blood transfusion process. Transfusion Medicine Reviews, 22(4): 291--299, 2008.
[13]
P. L. Henneman, D. L. Fisher, E. A. Henneman, et al. Patient identification errors are common in clinical simulation. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2009.
[14]
G. J. Holzmann. The SPIN Model Checker. Addison-Wesley, 2004.
[15]
N. Leveson. Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, 1995.
[16]
M. Peleg, S. W. Tu, J. Bury, et al. Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models: A case-study approach. JAMIA, 10:2003, 2002.
[17]
M. Raunak, L. Osterweil, A. Wise, et al. Simulating patient flow through an emergency department using process-driven discrete event simulation. In 1st ICSE Wkshp. on Softw. Eng. in Health Care, p. 73--83, 2009.
[18]
W. A. Shewhart. Economic control of quality of manufactured product. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc, 1931.
[19]
D. H. Stamatis. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution. American Society for Quality, 1995.
[20]
W. W. Stead and H. S. Lin, editors. Computational Technology for Effective Health Care: Immediate Steps and Strategic Directions. Nat. Acad. Press, 2009.
[21]
A. ten Teije, M. Marcos, M. Balser, et al. Improving medical protocols by formal methods. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 36(3): 193--209, 2006.
[22]
W. Vesely, F. Goldberg, N. Roberts, et al. Fault Tree Handbook (NUREG-0492). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1981.
[23]
J. Xiao, L. J. Osterweil, Q. Wang, et al. Dynamic resource scheduling in disruption-prone software development environments. In 13th Intl. Conf., FASE 2010, 2010.

Cited By

View all
  • (2020)Digital Cognitive Aids to Support Adaptation of Surgical Processes to COVID-19 Protective Policies2020 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA)10.1109/CogSIMA49017.2020.9215995(205-210)Online publication date: Aug-2020
  • (2020)A framework for supporting the development of verifiably safe medical best practice guideline systemsJournal of Systems Architecture: the EUROMICRO Journal10.1016/j.sysarc.2019.101693104:COnline publication date: 1-Mar-2020
  • (2018)Augmenting Machine Learning with ArgumentationProceedings of the New Security Paradigms Workshop10.1145/3285002.3285005(1-11)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2018
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
IHI '10: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Health Informatics Symposium
November 2010
886 pages
ISBN:9781450300308
DOI:10.1145/1882992
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 November 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. continuous medical process improvement
  2. finite-state verification
  3. model checking
  4. process definition and analysis
  5. property specifications

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

IHI '10
IHI '10: ACM International Health Informatics Symposium
November 11 - 12, 2010
Virginia, Arlington, USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)8
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2020)Digital Cognitive Aids to Support Adaptation of Surgical Processes to COVID-19 Protective Policies2020 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA)10.1109/CogSIMA49017.2020.9215995(205-210)Online publication date: Aug-2020
  • (2020)A framework for supporting the development of verifiably safe medical best practice guideline systemsJournal of Systems Architecture: the EUROMICRO Journal10.1016/j.sysarc.2019.101693104:COnline publication date: 1-Mar-2020
  • (2018)Augmenting Machine Learning with ArgumentationProceedings of the New Security Paradigms Workshop10.1145/3285002.3285005(1-11)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2018
  • (2018)Toward improving surgical outcomes by incorporating cognitive load measurement into process-driven guidanceProceedings of the International Workshop on Software Engineering in Healthcare Systems10.1145/3194696.3194705(2-9)Online publication date: 28-May-2018
  • (2018)Development of an Interactive Dashboard to Analyze Cognitive Workload of Surgical Teams During Complex Procedural Care2018 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA)10.1109/COGSIMA.2018.8423995(77-82)Online publication date: Jun-2018
  • (2017)Iterative Analysis to Improve Key Properties of Critical Human-Intensive ProcessesACM Transactions on Privacy and Security10.1145/304104120:2(1-31)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2017
  • (2017)Cognitive support during high-consequence episodes of care in cardiovascular surgery2017 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA)10.1109/COGSIMA.2017.7929610(1-3)Online publication date: Mar-2017
  • (2016)Smart checklists to improve healthcare outcomesProceedings of the International Workshop on Software Engineering in Healthcare Systems10.1145/2897683.2897691(54-57)Online publication date: 14-May-2016
  • (2016)Temporal–Spatial Collaboration Support for Nursing and Caregiving ServicesGlobal Perspectives on Service Science: Japan10.1007/978-1-4939-3594-9_13(193-206)Online publication date: 27-May-2016
  • (2014)Insider Threat Identification by Process AnalysisProceedings of the 2014 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops10.1109/SPW.2014.40(251-264)Online publication date: 17-May-2014
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media