Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources, Clinical Quality Language, and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms in Representing Clinical Evidence Logic Statements for the Use of Imaging Procedures: Descriptive Study

Background Evidence-based guidelines and recommendations can be transformed into “If-Then” Clinical Evidence Logic Statements (CELS). Imaging-related CELS were represented in standardized formats in the Harvard Medical School Library of Evidence (HLE). Objective We aimed to (1) describe the representation of CELS using established Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), Clinical Quality Language (CQL), and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standards and (2) assess the limitations of using these standards to represent imaging-related CELS. Methods This study was exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board as it involved no human subjects. Imaging-related clinical recommendations were extracted from evidence sources and translated into CELS. The clinical terminologies of CELS were represented using SNOMED CT and the condition-action logic was represented in CQL and FHIR. Numbers of fully and partially represented CELS were tallied. Results A total of 765 CELS were represented in the HLE as of December 2018. We were able to fully represent 137 of 765 (17.9%) CELS using SNOMED CT, CQL, and FHIR. We were able to represent terms using SNOMED CT in the temporal component for action (“Then”) statements in CQL and FHIR in 755 of 765 (98.7%) CELS. Conclusions CELS were represented as shareable clinical decision support (CDS) knowledge artifacts using existing standards—SNOMED CT, FHIR, and CQL—to promote and accelerate adoption of evidence-based practice. Limitations to standardization persist, which could be minimized with an add-on set of standard terms and value sets and by adding time frames to the CQL framework.

[1]  Kensaku Kawamoto,et al.  Design, Development, and Initial Evaluation of a Terminology for Clinical Decision Support and Electronic Clinical Quality Measurement , 2015, AMIA.

[2]  Tim Benson,et al.  Principles of Health Interoperability , 2016, Health Information Technology Standards.

[3]  S. Jaglal,et al.  Validation of the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) for Patient Selection for Bone Densitometry , 1999, Osteoporosis International.

[4]  R. McKay,et al.  The use of the clinical scoring system by Alvarado in the decision to perform computed tomography for acute appendicitis in the ED. , 2007, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[5]  Ian Stiell,et al.  Validation of the Canadian c-spine rule in the UK emergency department setting , 2010, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[6]  Ramin Khorasani,et al.  Assessing Strength of Evidence of Appropriate Use Criteria for Diagnostic Imaging Examinations , 2016, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[7]  George A Wells,et al.  The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury , 2001, The Lancet.

[8]  Ramin Khorasani,et al.  Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support for imaging: enabling evidence-based practice to improve quality and reduce waste. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Cary P Gross,et al.  Derivation and validation of a clinical prediction rule for uncomplicated ureteral stone—the STONE score: retrospective and prospective observational cohort studies , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  V. Hasselblad,et al.  Effect of Clinical Decision-Support Systems , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  T. Nokes,et al.  Three-year clinical experience with VQ SPECT for diagnosing pulmonary embolism: diagnostic performance. , 2014, Clinical imaging.

[12]  T. Mills,et al.  Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Mel Herbert,et al.  Developing a decision instrument to guide computed tomographic imaging of blunt head injury patients. , 2005, The Journal of trauma.

[14]  J. Kinross,et al.  Risk stratification by the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score to guide decision‐making in patients with suspected appendicitis , 2015, The British journal of surgery.

[15]  M. Gold,et al.  Assessing HITECH Implementation and Lessons: 5 Years Later. , 2016, The Milbank quarterly.

[16]  R. Khorasani,et al.  Effect of Evidence-based Clinical Decision Support on the Use and Yield of CT Pulmonary Angiographic Imaging in Hospitalized Patients. , 2015, Radiology.

[17]  Arnaud Perrier,et al.  Prediction of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department: The Revised Geneva Score , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  A simple clinical decision rule to rule out appendicitis in patients with nondiagnostic ultrasound results. , 2014, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[19]  W. Huda,et al.  Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[20]  M. L. R. D. Christenson,et al.  Guidelines for Management of Small Pulmonary Nodules Detected on CT Scans: A Statement From the Fleischner Society , 2006 .

[21]  J. Haukoos,et al.  Validation of the Simplified Motor Score for the prediction of brain injury outcomes after trauma. , 2007, Annals of emergency medicine.

[22]  Hhs Centers for Medicare Medicare Services.  Medicare Program; Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Payment System. Final rule. , 2016, Federal register.

[23]  Ramin Khorasani,et al.  Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library , 2018, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..