No abstract

Background Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly used for clinical and translational research through the creation of phenotype algorithms. Currently, phenotype algorithms are most commonly represented as noncomputable descriptive documents and knowledge artifacts that detail the protocols for querying diagnoses, symptoms, procedures, medications, and/or text-driven medical concepts, and are primarily meant for human comprehension. We present desiderata for developing a computable phenotype representation model (PheRM).Methods A team of clinicians and informaticians reviewed common features for multisite phenotype algorithms published in PheKB.org and existing phenotype representation platforms. We also evaluated well-known diagnostic criteria and clinical decision-making guidelines to encompass a broader category of algorithms.Results We propose 10 desired characteristics for a flexible, computable PheRM: (1) structure clinical data into queryable forms; (2) recommend use of a common data model, but also support customization for the variability and availability of EHR data among sites; (3) support both human-readable and computable representations of phenotype algorithms; (4) implement set operations and relational algebra for modeling phenotype algorithms; (5) represent phenotype criteria with structured rules; (6) support defining temporal relations between events; (7) use standardized terminologies and ontologies, and facilitate reuse of value sets; (8) define representations for text searching and natural language processing; (9) provide interfaces for external software algorithms; and (10) maintain backward compatibility.Conclusion A computable PheRM is needed for true phenotype portability and reliability across different EHR products and healthcare systems. These desiderata are a guide to inform the establishment and evolution of EHR phenotype algorithm authoring platforms and languages.

Objective The aim of this study was to examine whether lag-sequential analysis could be used to describe eye gaze orientation between clinicians and patients in the medical encounter. This topic is particularly important as new technologies are implemented into multi-user health care settings where trust is critical and nonverbal cues are integral to achieving trust. This analysis method could lead to design guidelines for technologies and more effective assessments of interventions. Background Nonverbal communication patterns are important aspects of clinician-patient interactions and may impact patient outcomes. Method Eye gaze behaviors of clinicians and patients in 110-videotaped medical encounters were analyzed using the lag-sequential method to identify significant behavior sequences. Lag-sequential analysis included both event-based lag and time-based lag. Results Results from event-based lag analysis showed that the patients’ gaze followed that of clinicians, while clinicians did not follow patients. Time-based sequential analysis showed that responses from the patient usually occurred within two seconds after the initial behavior of the clinician. Conclusion Our data suggest that the clinician’s gaze significantly affects the medical encounter but not the converse. Application Findings from this research have implications for the design of clinical work systems and modeling interactions. Similar research methods could be used to identify different behavior patterns in clinical settings (physical layout, technology, etc.) to facilitate and evaluate clinical work system designs.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the antecedents of trust in technology for active users and passive users working with a shared technology. According to the prominence-interpretation theory, to assess the trustworthiness of a technology, a person must first perceive and evaluate elements of the system that includes the technology. An experimental study was conducted with 54 participants who worked in two-person teams in a multi-task environment with a shared technology. Trust in technology was measured using a trust in technology questionnaire and antecedents of trust were elicited using an open-ended question. A list of antecedents of trust in technology was derived using qualitative analysis techniques. The following categories emerged from the antecedent: technology factors, user factors, and task factors. Similarities and differences between active users and passive user responses, in terms of trust in technology were discussed.