Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium logoLink to Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium
. 1997:779–783.

Can data representation and interface demands be reconciled? Approach in ORCA.

A M van Ginneken 1, M de Wilde 1, E M van Mulligen 1, H Stam 1
PMCID: PMC2233342  PMID: 9357731

Abstract

Research in the domain of computer-based patient records had always faced the conflicting demands of efficiency for the practicing physician and suitability of the record contents for data analysis in view of decision support, research, and quality assessment. Interface and contents pose different demands on the data model underlying the record. The challenge is to combine the most suitable model for data representation with the interface that best fits the clinical setting. ORCA (Open Record for CAre) provides a solution by making the distinction between domain dependent and domain independent data and letting domain dependence be decisive for the choice of model. Interactive definition of custom-views provides interface flexibility for domain dependent data. Views on domain independent data need not cope with the limitations of multiple table views in relational DBMSs. A standard set of single table queries can support recording of domain independent data, irrespective of the clinical setting.

Full text

PDF
779

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Barnett G. O. The application of computer-based medical-record systems in ambulatory practice. N Engl J Med. 1984 Jun 21;310(25):1643–1650. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198406213102506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baud R. H., Rassinoux A. M., Scherrer J. R. Natural language processing and semantical representation of medical texts. Methods Inf Med. 1992 Jun;31(2):117–125. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernauer J. Conceptual graphs as an operational model for descriptive findings. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1991:214–218. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cimino J. J. Data storage and knowledge representation for clinical workstations. Int J Biomed Comput. 1994 Jan;34(1-4):185–194. doi: 10.1016/0020-7101(94)90021-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Evans D. A., Cimino J. J., Hersh W. R., Huff S. M., Bell D. S. Toward a medical-concept representation language. The Canon Group. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994 May-Jun;1(3):207–217. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1994.95236153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gouveia-Oliveira A., Salgado N. C., Azevedo A. P., Lopes L., Raposo V. D., Almeida I., de Melo F. G. A unified approach to the design of clinical reporting systems. Methods Inf Med. 1994 Dec;33(5):479–487. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kent D. L., Shortliffe E. H., Carlson R. W., Bischoff M. B., Jacobs C. D. Improvements in data collection through physician use of a computer-based chemotherapy treatment consultant. J Clin Oncol. 1985 Oct;3(10):1409–1417. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1985.3.10.1409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. McDonald C. J., Tierney W. M. Computer-stored medical records. Their future role in medical practice. JAMA. 1988 Jun 17;259(23):3433–3440. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Moorman P. W., van Ginneken A. M., Siersema P. D., van der Lei J., van Bemmel J. H. Evaluation of reporting based on descriptional knowledge. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1995 Nov-Dec;2(6):365–373. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1995.96157829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Poon A. D., Fagan L. M. PEN-Ivory: the design and evaluation of a pen-based computer system for structured data entry. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:447–451. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rasmussen J. E., Bassøe C. F. Semantic analysis of medical records. Methods Inf Med. 1993 Feb;32(1):66–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Reiser S. J. The clinical record in medicine. Part 2: Reforming content and purpose. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Jun 1;114(11):980–985. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-114-11-980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Shortliffe E. H., Tang P. C., Detmer D. E. Patient records and computers. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Dec 15;115(12):979–981. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-115-12-979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Trace D., Naeymi-Rad F., Haines D., Robert J. J., deSouza Almeida F., Carmony L., Evans M. Intelligent Medical Record--entry (IMR-E). J Med Syst. 1993 Aug;17(3-4):139–151. doi: 10.1007/BF00996938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Whiting-O'Keefe Q. E., Simborg D. W., Epstein W. V., Warger A. A computerized summary medical record system can provide more information than the standard medical record. JAMA. 1985 Sep 6;254(9):1185–1192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wood D. P., Jr, Kay R., Norris D. Renal sarcomas of childhood. Urology. 1990 Jul;36(1):73–78. doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(90)80318-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wyatt J. C. Clinical data systems, Part 3: Development and evaluation. Lancet. 1994 Dec 17;344(8938):1682–1688. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)90463-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Zwetsloot-Schonk J. H., van Stiphout W. A., Snitker P., van Es L. A., Vandenbroucke J. P. How to approach a hospital information system as sampling frame. Selection of patients with a percutaneous renal biopsy. Med Inform (Lond) 1991 Jul-Sep;16(3):287–298. doi: 10.3109/14639239109025303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. van Ginneken A. M., Stam H., Moorman P. W. A multi-strategy approach for medical records of specialists. Int J Biomed Comput. 1996 Jul;42(1-2):21–26. doi: 10.1016/0020-7101(96)81525-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. van Ginneken A. M. Structured data entry in ORCA: the strengths of two models combined. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996:797–801. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium are provided here courtesy of American Medical Informatics Association

RESOURCES