BIT Pathways – a tool for teaching and learning clinical pathways

• Autorzy: Kononowicz A. A. , Holler T.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The primary objective of clinical pathways is to improve the quality of healthcare and to reduce variations and costs, however they also have the potential to be used as an efficient learning resource. Their introduction can help medical professionals to keep their knowledge up-to-date and to better learn their roles and responsibilities in a hospital. >>mipp> is a clinical pathway project undertaken at the Aarau Canton Hospital in Switzerland. Existing >>mipp> tools have been extended to support better dissemination of clinical pathways in the hospital and to serve also as an educational tool. Newly implemented authoring and visualization tool – BIT Pathways – has made it possible to develop pathways easily. The tool may be used outside the Aarau Canton Hospital for educational purposes. A group of 47 multidisciplinary postgraduate students has preliminarily tested the software with encouraging results.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

application; subject area; architecture; educational technology system; authoring tools; authoring method

• Wydawca: Uniwersytet Jagielloński - Collegium Medicum ; Index Copernicus Sp. z o.o.
• Czasopismo: Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: Vol. 4, no. 8
• Strony: 33--39
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 22 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Kononowicz A. A.

• Department of Bioinformatics and Telemedicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Św. Łazarza 16, PL 31-530 Kraków, Poland

autor

Holler T.

• Canton Hospital Aarau, Kantonsspital Aarau AG, Tellstrasse, CH-5001 Aarau, Switzerland

Bibliografia

• 1. Bollmann M. & Beck M. (2002), Geplante Behandlungsabläufe und CaseMaps – Wirkung, Nutzen und Anwendungsfelder im Krankenhaus der Zukunft. In: Hellmann W. (ed.), Klinische Pfade: Konzepte, Umsetzung, Erfahrungen Landsberg/Lech: ecomed, pp. 239-248.
• 2. Campbell H., Hotchkiss R., Bradshaw N., & Porteous M. (1998), Integrated care pathways. BMJ, 316, 133-137.
• 3. Campbell J., Tu S.W., Boyer J., & Mansfield G. (2003), The sage guideline model: A knowledge representation framework for encoding interoperable clinical practice guidelines . Stanford: Stanford Medical Informatics; Report No.: SMI-2003-0962.
• 4. Canton Hospital Aarau (2005), Annual Report.
• 5. Crane D., Pascarello E., & Darren J. (2006), Ajax in Action Greenwich: Manning Publications Co.
• 6. Dazzi L., Fassino C., Saracco R., Quaglini S., & Stefanelli M. (1997), A patient work flow management system built on guidelines. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium. Hanley & Belfus, pp. 146-150.
• 7. Fong J., Wong H.K., & Fong A. (2003), Performance Analysis between an XML-Enabled Database and a Native XML Database. In: Chaudhri A.B., Rashid A., Zicari R. (ed.), XML Data Management: Native XML and XML-Enabled Database Systems . Addison-Wesley, pp. 547-565.
• 8. Georg G., Séroussi B., & Bouaud J. (2005), Extending the GEM model to support knowledge extraction from textual guidelines. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 74, 79-87.
• 9. Holler T., Schmid K., Müller H.P., Reemts Ch., Bissat K., & Rieben E. (2002), Praktische Pfadarbeit – Konstruktion, Implementierung, Controlling von Patientenpfaden. In: Hellmann W. (ed.), Klinische Pfade: Konzepte, Umsetzung, Erfahrungen . Landsberg/Lech: ecomed, pp. 38-129.
• 10. Meier W.M. (2003), eXist Native XML Database. In: Chaudhri A.B., Rashid A., Zicari R. (ed.), XML Data Management: Native XML and XML-Enabled Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, pp. 43-68.
• 11. Ohno-Machado L., Gennari J., Murphy S., Jain N., Tu S., Oliver D. et al. (1998), The GuideLine Interchange Format: A Model for Representing Guidelines. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association, 5, 357-372.
• 12. Panella M., Marchisio S., & Di Stanislao F. (2003), Reducing clinical variations with clinical pathways: Do pathways work? International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15 (6), 509-521.
• 13. Pearson S.D., Goulart-Fisher D., & Lee T.H. (1995), Critical Pathways as a Strategy for Improving Care: Problems and Potential. Annals of Internal Medicine 123 (12), 941-948.
• 14. Rieben E., Müller H., Holler T., & Ruflin G. (2003), Pfadkostenrechnung als Kostenträgerrechnung – Kalkulation und Anwendung von Patientenpfaden. Landsberg/Lech: ecomed.
• 15. Roeder N. & Küttner T. (2006), Behandlungspfade im Licht von Kosteneffekten im Rahmen des DRG-Systems. Internist 47 (7), 684-689.
• 16. Shiffman R., Agrawal A., Deshpande A., & Gershkovich P. (2001), An Approach to Guidelines Implementation with GEM. In: Patel V. et al. (ed.), MEDINFO 2001. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 271-275.
• 17. Tu S.W., Shankara R., Campbell J., Hrabak K., McClayb J., Huffc S.M., et al. (2004), Modeling Guidelines for Integration into Clinical Work flow. In: Fieschi M. et al. (ed.), MEDINFO 2004. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 174-178.
• 18. Weiland D.E. (1997), Why use clinical pathways rather than practice guidelines? American Journal of Surgery, 174 , 592-595.
• 19. Woolf S.H., Grol R., Hutchinson , Eccles M., & Grimshaw J. (1999), Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 318 , 527-530.
• Web References
• 1. CPG-RA: The Clinical Practice Guideline - Reference Architecture, http://www.cpg-ra.net (3.06.2008)
• 2. Polish National Health Fund (Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia NFZ), http://www.nfz.gov.pl (3.6.2008)
• 3. TARMED Suisse, http://www.tarmedsuisse.ch (3.6.2008)