Healthc Inform Res.  2010 Dec;16(4):201-214. 10.4258/hir.2010.16.4.201.

Detailed Clinical Models: A Review

• Goossen W
• Goossen-Baremans A
• van der Zel M

• KMID: 2284534
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2010.16.4.201

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
Due to the increasing use of electronic patient records and other health care information technology, we see an increase in requests to utilize these data. A highly level of standardization is required during the gathering of these data in the clinical context in order to use it for analyses. Detailed Clinical Models (DCM) have been created toward this purpose and several initiatives have been implemented in various parts of the world to create standardized models. This paper presents a review of DCM.
METHODS
Two types of analyses are presented; one comparing DCM against health care information architectures and a second bottom up approach from concept analysis to representation. In addition core parts of the draft ISO standard 13972 on DCM are used such as clinician involvement, data element specification, modeling, meta information, and repository and governance.
RESULTS
Six initiatives were selected: Intermountain Healthcare, 13606/OpenEHR Archetypes, Clinical Templates, Clinical Contents Models, Health Level 7 templates, and Dutch Detailed Clinical Models. Each model selected was reviewed for their overall development, involvement of clinicians, use of data types, code bindings, expressing semantics, modeling, meta information, use of repository and governance.
CONCLUSIONS
Using both a top down and bottom up approach to comparison reveals many commonalties and differences between initiatives. Important differences include the use of or lack of a reference model and expressiveness of models. Applying clinical data element standards facilitates the use of conceptual DCM models in different technical representations.

Keyword

Archetypes; Concept Representation; Detailed Clinical Models; Electronic Health Records; Health Level 7; Information Modeling; Templates

MeSH Terms

Delivery of Health Care
Electronic Health Records
Electronics
Electrons
Health Level Seven
Humans
Semantics

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 The relative position of DCM in an health IT architecture (GCM), expressing domain, system components (RM-ODP), and systems orientations, including services paradigm (SAIF) and model driven application development (MDA). GCM: Generic Components Model, DAM: Domain Analysis Models, FM: Functional Model, DCM: Detailed Clinical Models, RM-ODP: Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing, SAIF: Services Aware Interoperability Framework, MDA: Model Driven Architecture.

Reference

1. Huff SM, Rocha RA, Coyle JF, Narus SP. Integrating detailed clinical models into application development tools. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004. 107:1058–1062.

2. Parker CG, Rocha RA, Campbell JR, Tu SW, Huff SM. Detailed clinical models for sharable, executable guidelines. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004. 107:145–148.

3. Goossen W. Model once, use multiple times: reusing HL7 domain models from one domain to the other. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004. 107:366–370.

4. Goossen WT. De Clercq, De Moor G, Bellon J, Foulon M, van der Lei J, editors. Using detailed clinical models to bridge the gap between clinicians and HIT. Collaborative patient centred ehealth. 2008. Amsterdam: IOS Press;3–10.

5. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium [Internet]. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium. c2010. cited at 2010 Nov 20. Round Rock (TX): Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium;Available from: http://www.cdisc.org/site/index.php.

6. SNOMED CT [Internet]. International Health Terminology Standards Development Organisation. c2010. cited at 2010 Nov 20. Cophenhagen: International Health Terminology Standards Development Organisation;Available from: http://www.ihtsdo.org.

7. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). ISO/CEN 13972 health informatics: quality criteria and methodology for detailed clinical models draft materials. 2010. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.

8. Open source healthcare solutions that facilitate collaboration [Internet]. The Tolven Institute. c2009. cited at 2010 Nov 20. The Tolven Institute;Available from: http://www.tolven.org/index.html.

9. Hoy D, Hardiker NR, McNicoll IT, Westwell P. A feasibility study on clinical templates for the National Health Service in Scotland. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007. 129:770–774.

10. Normative edition of the HL7 Standards 2010 [Internet]. Health Level 7. c2010. cited at 2010 Nov 21. Ann Arbor (MI): Health Level Seven International;Available from: http://www.hl7.org.

11. van der Kooij J, Goossen WT, Goossen-Baremans AT, Plaisier N. Evaluation of documents that integrate knowledge, terminology and information models. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006. 122:519–522.

12. Clinical contents model. Center for Interoperable EHR. c2010. cite at 2010 Nov 26. Seoul: Center for Interoperable EHR;Available from: http://www.clinicalcontentsmodel.org/main.php.

13. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). ISO/CEN 13606: health Informatics-electronic health record communication. 2010. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.

14. Rector AL, Nowlan WA, Kay S, Goble CA, Howkins TJ. A framework for modelling the electronic medical record. Methods Inf Med. 1993. 32:109–119.

15. Johnson SB. Generic data modeling for clinical repositories. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996. 3:328–339.

16. Beale T. Archetypes constraint-based domain models for future-proof information systems [Internet]. c2002-2001. cited at 2010 Nov 22. Available from: http://www.openehr.org/publications/archetypes/archetypes_beale_web_2000.pdf.

17. Beale T. Archetypes and the EHR. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2003. 96:238–244.

18. OpenEHR: clinical knowledge manager. Ocean Informatics. c2007-2010. cited at 2010 Oct 20. New South Wales: Ocean Informatics;Available from: http://www.openehr.org/knowledge/.

19. White TM, Hauan MJ. Extending the LOINC conceptual schema to support standardized assessment instruments. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002. 9:586–599.

20. Blobel B. Architectural approach to eHealth for enabling paradigm changes in health. Methods Inf Med. 2010. 49:123–134.

21. CDE browser. National Cancer Institute. c2010. cited at 2010 Nov 30. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute;Available from: https://cdebrowser.nci.nih.gov/CDEBrowser/.

22. Sharfarman M, Gilliam B. Standardizing clinical concept representation: a discussion paper. 2010. Toronto: Canada Health Inforway.

23. Huff SM. Presentation on detailed clinical models. 2010. Utrecht: HL7 Netherlands.

24. Ahn SJ. Development of evaluation metrics for DCM [Internet]. HL7 Working Group Meeting 2009; 2009 Sep 20-25; Atlanta, GA. c2010. cited at 2010 Nov 21. Ann Arbor (MI): Health Level Seven International;Available from: http://www.hl7.org/Library/Committees/patientcare/HL7_DCM_SunjuAhn.pdf.

25. de Bel E. Ontwikkeling van een elektronisch patientendossier op basis van HL7. HL7 Mag. 2005. 25:6–8.

26. Goossen WT, Goossen-Baremans A. Bridging the HL7 template: 13606 archetype gap with detailed clinical models. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010. 160:932–936.

27. Dutch Mirror Group on Information Models & Messages. Insight into the choices to be made in standards for the electronic exchange of health record information. 2008. Delft: Netherlands Normalization Institute (NEN).

28. Blobel B. Advanced and secure architectural EHR approaches. Int J Med Inform. 2006. 75:185–190.

29. Bointner K, Duftschmid G. HL7 template model and EN/ISO 13606 archetype object model: a comparison. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009. 150:249.

30. Sato L. A NHS logical health record architecture: vision, objectives and success criteria. Technical report. 2008. West Yorkshire: National Health Service.

31. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/FDIS 18308: health informatics - requirements for an electronic health record architecture. 2008. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

32. Health Level 7. Electronic health record systems functional model (HL7 EHR-S FM). 2010. Ann Arbor (MI): Health Level Seven International.

33. Cuggia M, Bayat S, Rossille D, Poulain P, Pladys P, Robert H, Duvauferrier R. Comparing the APGAR score representation in HL7 and OpenEHR formalisms. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009. 150:250–254.

34. Schadow G, McDonald CJ. The unified code for units of measure [Internet]. c1999-2010. cited at 2010 Oct 12. Indianapolis (IN): The UCLM Organization;Available from: http://unitsofmeasure.org/.

35. Logical observation identifiers names and codes (LOINC) [Internet]. Regenstrief Institute. c1994-2010. cited at 2010 Nov 20. Available from: http://loinc.org/.

36. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 10746. ITU-T X.901: reference model for open distributed processing. 1998. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

37. OMG model driven architecture: how systems will be built [Internet]. Object Management Group. c1997-2010. cited at 2010 Nov 20. Needham (MA): Object Management Group;Available from: www.omg.org/mda.

38. van der Zel M, Goossen W. Bridging the gap between software developers and healthcare professionals: model driven application development. Hosp Inf Technol Eur. 2009. 3:20–22.

39. Service-aware interoperability framework (SAIF) executive summary. Health Level 7. c2010. cited at 2010 Nov 28. Ann Arbor (MI): Health Level Seven International;Available from: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=SAIF_ExecutiveSummary.

40. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/FDIS 21090: health informatics - harmonized data types for information interchange. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

41. Madden R, Sykes C, Ustun T. World Health Organization family of international classifications: definition, scope and purpose. 2007. Geneva: World Health Organization.

42. International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 11179: information technology - Metadata registries (MDR). 2005. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.

43. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). CEN/TS 15699:2009 - health informatics-clinical knowledge resources-metadata. 2009. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.