An ontology of cancer therapies supporting interoperability and data consistency in EPRs.

Ontologies can formally describe the semantics of the medical domain in an unambiguous and machine processable form, acting as a conceptual interface between different applications that must interoperate. In this paper we present an ontology of cancer therapies originally developed to bridge the gap between an oncologic Electronic Patient Record (EPR) and a guideline-based decision support system. We show an application of the ontology complemented by rules to classify therapies recorded in the EPR. The results show how such an ontology can be used also to discover possible problems of data consistency in the EPR.

Implementation of electronic checklists in an oncology medical record: initial clinical experience.

PURPOSE: The quality of any medical treatment depends on the accurate processing of multiple complex components of information, with proper delivery to the patient. This is true for radiation oncology, in which treatment delivery is as complex as a surgical procedure but more dependent on hardware and software technology. Uncorrected errors, even if small or infrequent, can result in catastrophic consequences for the patient. We developed electronic checklists (ECLs) within the oncology electronic medical record (EMR) and evaluated their use and report on our initial clinical experience. METHODS: Using the Mosaiq EMR, we developed checklists within the clinical assessment section. These checklists are based on the process flow of information from one group to another within the clinic and enable the processing, confirmation, and documentation of relevant patient information before the delivery of radiation therapy. The clinical use of the ECL was documented by means of a customized report. RESULTS: Use of ECL has reduced the number of times that physicians were called to the treatment unit. In particular, the ECL has ensured that therapists have a better understanding of the treatment plan before the initiation of treatment. An evaluation of ECL compliance showed that, with additional staff training, > 94% of the records were completed. CONCLUSION: The ECL can be used to ensure standardization of procedures and documentation that the pretreatment checks have been performed before patient treatment. We believe that the implementation of ECLs will improve patient safety and reduce the likelihood of treatment errors.

Different usage of the same oncology information system in two hospitals in Sydney--lessons go beyond the initial introduction.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The experience of clinicians at two public hospitals in Sydney, Australia, with the introduction and use of an oncology information system (OIS) was examined to extract lessons to guide the introduction of clinical information systems in public hospitals. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 of 15 radiation oncologists employed at the two hospitals. The personnel involved in the decision making process for the introduction of the system were contacted and their decision making process revisited. The transcribed data were analyzed using NVIVO software. Themes emerged included implementation strategies and practices, the radiation oncologists' current use and satisfaction with the OIS, project management and the impact of the OIS on clinical practice. RESULTS: The hospitals had contrasting experiences in their introduction and use of the OIS. Hospital A used the OIS in all aspects of clinical documentation. Its implementation was associated with strong advocacy by the Head of Department, input by a designated project manager, and use and development of the system by all staff, with timely training and support. With no vision of developing a paperless information system, Hospital B used the OIS only for booking and patient tracking. A departmental policy that data entry for the OIS was centrally undertaken by administrative staff distanced clinicians from the system. All the clinicians considered that the OIS should continuously evolve to meet changing clinical needs and departmental quality improvement initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: This case study indicates that critical factors for the successful introduction of clinical information systems into hospital environment were an initial clear vision to be paperless, strong clinical leadership and management at the departmental level, committed project management, and involvement of all staff, with appropriate training. Clinician engagement is essential for post-adoption evolution of clinical information systems.