Healthcare use of workflow engine technology with emphasis on data analysis and decision support
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
4 gefällt mir•4,146 views
Healthcare use of workflow engine technology with emphasis on data analysis and decision support 1. Describe the abstract notion of a workflow engine and workflow technology in general 2. Understand the relationship of flowcharts (common in medical guidelines) to executable models of processes used by workflow engines 3. Understand current use of workflow engines in healthcare in production environment and in research context (phenotype modeling, data analysis, clinical decision support, process mining and discovery) Includes description of some of my research projects 4. List the evidence for benefits and challenges of using workflow engines in healthcare
![Objectives ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD]()
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Healthcare use of workflow engine technology with emphasis on data analysis and decision support
Ähnlich wie Healthcare use of workflow engine technology with emphasis on data analysis and decision support (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Healthcare use of workflow engine technology with emphasis on data analysis and decision support
- 1. Healthcare use of workflow engine technology with emphasis on data analysis and decision support Vojtech Huser MD PhD Laboratory for Informatics Development National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center Bethesda, MD, USA
- 4. Workflow Technology (WT) Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 7. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 8. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 9. Humans & machines working together Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 10. Executable flowchart Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 11. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 12. Minimum components Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD language editor execution engine
- 13. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 14. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 15. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 16. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 17. Workflow engine Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 18. Engine Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 20. Flowcharts Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 22. Clinical Guidelines Quality Improvement measures Process definition (workflow editor)
- 23. Examples of WT use in healthcare Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Bed management Infections control (MRSA) J. Emanuele and L. Koetter, "Workflow Opportunities and Challenges in Healthcare," in 2007 BPM & Workflow Handbook, 2007. L. Koetter, "MRSA infection control with workflow technology," Spring AMIA Conference, Orlando, FL, 2007. R. Hess, "The Chester County Hospital: Case Study," in 2007 Excellence in Practice: Moving the Goalposts., 2007.
- 24. Stroke guideline (WfMS) Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 25. Soarian Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 26. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 27. Current Soarian Example Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Main Line Health (Harm Sherpbier) Soarian: Workflow engine (Tibco), MLM (Arden Syntax)
- 28. Rheumatology decision support Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 29. My research in workflow technology
- 30. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD 1. 2. HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 31. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 32. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 33. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Medinfo 2007
- 36. HealthFlow System Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD code.google.com/p/HealthFlow
- 37. HealthFlow: RetroGuide, FlowGuide Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD code.google.com/p/HealthFlow
- 38. HealthFlow: RetroGuide + FlowGuide Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 40. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD self service tools (i2b2)
- 41. HealthFlow: RetroGuide, FlowGuide Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 42. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 43. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 44. Code Layer (node; right click properties) Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 45. HealthFlow: RetroGuide, FlowGuide Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 46. Together Workflow Engine (Community edition) Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 47. HealthFlow: RetroGuide, FlowGuide Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD HealthcareWorkflow.wordpress.com
- 48. Example of retrospective execution Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD 0.9% of patients with high risk patients with subsequent MI
- 49. Example of execution Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 51. Chronic kidney disease (mining)
- 54. Benefits and challenges of using workflow engines in healthcare Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
- 63. Extra slides
- 64. Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal -----Original Message----- From: Harold Lehmann [mailto:lehmann@jhmi.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:02 AM To: Huser, Vojtech (NIH/CC/OD) [E] Subject: Re: title - RE: Hopkins Grand Rounds Many thanks! Harold > From: Vojtech Huser < [email_address] > > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:32:42 -0500 > To: Harold Lehmann < [email_address] > > Cc: LaShawn Johnson < [email_address] > > Subject: RE: title - RE: Hopkins Grand Rounds > > Harold, > > Here are the edits: > > > > 1. Describe the abstract notion of a workflow engine and workflow > technology in general 2. Understand the relationship of flowcharts > (common in medical guidelines) to executable models of processes used > by workflow engines 3. Understand current use of workflow engines in > healthcare in production environment and in research context > (phenotype modeling, data analysis, clinical decision support, process > mining and discovery) 4. List the evidence for benefits and challenges > in using workflow engines in healthcare > > > Vojtech > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harold Lehmann [mailto:lehmann@jhmi.edu] > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:32 PM > To: Huser, Vojtech (NIH/CC/OD) [E] > Cc: LaShawn Johnson-Thomas > Subject: Re: title - RE: Hopkins Grand Rounds > > Fantastic. > > We have to turn &quot;topics&quot; into &quot;learning objectives,&quot; so let me > suggest the > following: > > 1. Describe the abstract notion of a workflow engine 2. Articulate > rules for turning workflow knowledge into flowcharts 3. Comparing the > uses of workflow engines in research (phenotype modeling and data > analysis), in clinical care (decision support), and in clinical > management (discovering healthcare processes) 4. List the evidence for > benefits and challenges in using workflow engines > > Please edit! > > Harold > > >> From: Vojtech Huser < [email_address] > >> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:53:08 -0500 >> To: Harold Lehmann < [email_address] > >> Cc: LaShawn Johnson < [email_address] > >> Subject: title - RE: Hopkins Grand Rounds >> >> Feb 3 it is, then. >> >> >> >> >> I would propose this title >> >> >> >> Title: >> Healthcare use of workflow engine technology (with emphasis on data >> analysis and decision support) >> >> Topics covered: (abstract outline) >> -What is a workflow engine >> -Modeling knowledge as flowcharts >> -Use in phenotype modeling and data analysis -Use in clinical >> decision support -Mining healthcare data (discovering healthcare >> processes) >> >> >> >> >> V >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Harold Lehmann [mailto:lehmann@jhmi.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:35 AM >> To: Huser, Vojtech (NIH/CC/OD) [E] >> Cc: LaShawn Johnson-Thomas >> Subject: Re: Hopkins Grand Rounds >> >> Yes, I meant Feb 3. >> >> Terrific! >> >> So do send me a title if you can this week. We can work out objectives then. >> >> Harold >> >> >> >>> From: Vojtech Huser < [email_address] > >>> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:28:32 -0500 >>> To: Harold Lehmann < [email_address] > >>> Cc: LaShawn Johnson < [email_address] > >>> Subject: RE: Hopkins Grand Rounds >>> >>> Harold, >>> >>> Feb 1 is not a Friday and I have one scheduled event. >>> If it were Friday Feb 3th, then yes. >>> >>> Otherwise I would stick to the Feb 24th >>> >>> >>> Vojtech >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Harold Lehmann [mailto:lehmann@jhmi.edu] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:21 AM >>> To: Huser, Vojtech (NIH/CC/OD) [E] >>> Cc: LaShawn Johnson-Thomas >>> Subject: Re: Hopkins Grand Rounds >>> >>> Vojtech -- >>> >>> Great, I'm pencilling you in for Feb 24. Is there a possibility you >>> could do Feb 1? >>> >>> You will be reimbursed for a receipt or for mileage; your choice! We >>> pay for lunch :) >>> >>> La Shawn Johnson-Thomas, our staff member in charge of these Rounds, >>> will get back to you with logistical and paperwork details, >>> especially those related to CME and to Webcasting/videotaping. >>> >>> Re EHRs---we will have rolling go lives. Community >>> hospitals-->JHH-->JHCP (outpatient clinics) is the order, I think. The first go-live is Apr 2013. >>> The hospital will be two years later, if I'm not mistaken. We will >>> be supporting Eclipsys until the transition is complete. >>> >>> I have no idea about the long term prospect for any of the vendors! >>> >>> Harold >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Vojtech Huser < [email_address] > >>>> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:52:03 -0500 >>>> To: Harold Lehmann < [email_address] > >>>> Cc: LaShawn Johnson < [email_address] > >>>> Subject: RE: Hopkins Grand Rounds >>>> >>>> Harold, >>>> >>>> I would be glad to come! >>>> Feb 24th is slightly better than the March date. >>>> >>>> The workflow work is probably a better topic and this topic can (at >>>> the >>>> end) >>>> include some of the process mining work which is one of the >>>> projects I am doing currently. >>>> >>>> What are some technicalities I should know about being a seminar speaker. >>>> (e.g., receipt strategy when taking a train vs. driving my own car) >>>> >>>> Vojtech >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> P.S. >>>> The Epic move is interesting. Has the go-live date been scheduled? >>>> >>>> I think you were on Eclipsys as well (like NIH was and is). >>>> We stick to Eclipsys for now. >>>> I wonder what will AllScripts, in the long run, do to the future of >>>> Eclipsys (acquired product for them). >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Harold Lehmann [mailto:lehmann@jhmi.edu] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:40 PM >>>> To: Huser, Vojtech (NIH/CC/OD) [E] >>>> Cc: LaShawn Johnson-Thomas >>>> Subject: Hopkins Grand Rounds >>>> >>>> Vojtech -- >>>> >>>> I wanted to followup on my verbal invitation for a Grand Rounds >>>> presentation here at Hopkins (see http://dhsi.med.jhmi.edu/node/25 >>>> and the link to prior Rounds). They are presented on Fridays at >>>> 12:15. I would love for you to speak either about the workflow work >>>> you did in the past or the research informatics work you are doing >>>> now. We are taking on Epic and its new research environment and >>>> need very much to learn from others. >>>> >>>> Date wise, Feb 24 or Mar 9 would be ideal; we have dates 4/27, 5/4, >>>> 5/11 >>>> 6/1 >>>> and 6/8 open as well. >>>> >>>> Harold >>>> >>> >> >
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal January 26, 2012 Dear Vojtech, We are looking forward to your presentation at our February 3, 2012 Informatics Grand Rounds at 12:15 p.m. Please allow an hour for your talk and a brief question period. As I am sure you know, there are a number of important administrative things that we need to do in order to comply with CME's very strict regulations. Please be certain to make a verbal disclosure at the start of your presentation as well as including the Disclosure slide at the start of the talk. I would be most grateful if you could return the information and various forms listed below to me by email on or before February 1, 2012. We are now publicizing your talk around the campus. 1. Title of Talk, abstract (have already) 2. Learning Objectives (have already) 3. Your CV or Bio 4. Signed Disclosure Form (attached) 5. Signed Webcast Permission Form (attached) 6. Copies of your disclosure & objectives slides (see attached, please edit as you wish) 7. Speaker Information Sheet (attached) -JHU's CME office requires that a disclosure and objectives slide be part of your presentation. Please visit: http://www.hopkinscme.net/Resources/RSCSupport.aspx , for examples. If you have any questions or concerns about this Webcasting/archiving, please let us know. Previous recordings are posted at http://dhsi.med.jhmi.edu/content/past_seminars.cfm For more information regarding requirements visit: http://dhsi.med.jhmi.edu/content/speakers.html You may send these documents via email. For driving directions visit: http://dhsi.med.jhmi.edu/content/visitors.html I know that Harold has already sent you the objectives of the DHSI Seminar Series, but have listed them again below for you to reference while filling out these forms. OBJECTIVES FOR THE SERIES: 1. Evaluate the ongoing development of the National Health Information Network 2. Identify key components of health information technology in a variety of health care and public health settings 3. Critique the success of health information technology through evaluation studies 4. Assess fit between information architecture in complex health settings and health needs 5. Characterize success of information technologies in technology-poor settings 6. Evaluate decision support in a variety of health-care related settings Thank you very much for participating in our seminar, and especially for doing the extra paper work required by CME. Best wishes, La Shawn L. Johnson-Thomas Administrative Coordinator Division of Health Sciences Informatics 2024 E. Monument Street, Ste 1-200 Baltimore, MD. 21205 443-287-6083 (P) 410-614-2064 (F) [email_address]
- 2007 Garnter report Oracle workflow, SAP, Microsoft, Fujitsi Workflow-only companies: Tibco (Staffware), Global 360 He Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal NOTICE: we can also defin a process where only IT tools play a role. (no humans) bad news: now we became a wheel in an big machine (workers) good news: now we won’t have to remember the order and maintain the record of in which order we run what applications. Executable visio. (managers)
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal system only participants mode retrospective mode real time mode (waiting application for next event) (instead of read next event)
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal Global 360 – wf editor (Process Designer)
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Processes can be hierarchical – sub flow
- One in 2010 Another in 2011
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal e.g., enrolling every woman with endometriosis who was treated with drug X and it did not work There is adverse event using treatment C – additional info must be collected – (triggered by treatment or something else – other ilness (infection))
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal 1: define scenario
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal 1 query which runs one of whole population vs. algorithm executed (and traced) on each patient
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal Linear regression (LR) was used to determine whether score difference could be predicted by any of the participant characteristics such as gender, age, SQL experience, or SQL experience source. No LR model could predict the score difference (adjusted R-squared < 0.1) and none of the factors were statistically significant. A two-sample t-test showed no statistical difference in test score differences between the group which started with SQL approach versus the group which started with RG approach. TRANSITION: In a way the quantitative part served as a preparation for the later qualitative questionnaire part Giving the users an active experience with both compared technology – do you want to be facing flowcharts or SQL code There was a suggestion to conduct just the qualitative part, Since there are some design limitations of the task-based quantitative study – which, in fact, do not play such role in the qualitative study. So in a way I consider the qualitative study of higher importance
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal Content – qualitative analysis categorization, summarization of the available textual data Transition: The remaining part of the qualitative study contained
- Vojtech Huser, MD, PhD Morgridge: Project proposal Other studies Hu (1999) telemedicine Chismar (2002), Wilson (2004) e-health internet applications Hooff (2003) knowledge sharing Based on many previous underlying theories - Including the Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action TRANSITION: So in summary the very Hu PJ, et al. Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology. Journal of Management of Information Systems 1999; 16 (2): 91-112. Chismar WG, Wiley-Patton S. Test of the technology acceptance model for the internet in pediatrics. Proc AMIA Symp 2002. pp 155-9. Wilson EV, Lankton NK. Modeling patients’ acceptance of provider-delivered e-health. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (4): 241-8. Hooff B v d, et al. Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge Communities in Communities and Technologies. M. Huysman (ed.). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003. pp 119-41.