A Novel Diagnostic Decision Support System for Medical Professionals: Prospective Feasibility Study

Joanna Timiliotis, Bibiana Blümke, Peter Daniel Serfözö, Stephen Gilbert, Marta Ondrésik, Ewelina Türk, Martin Christian Hirsch, Jens Eckstein, Joanna Timiliotis, Bibiana Blümke, Peter Daniel Serfözö, Stephen Gilbert, Marta Ondrésik, Ewelina Türk, Martin Christian Hirsch, Jens Eckstein

Abstract

Background: Continuously growing medical knowledge and the increasing amount of data make it difficult for medical professionals to keep track of all new information and to place it in the context of existing information. A variety of digital technologies and artificial intelligence-based methods are currently available as persuasive tools to empower physicians in clinical decision-making and improve health care quality. A novel diagnostic decision support system (DDSS) prototype developed by Ada Health GmbH with a focus on traceability, transparency, and usability will be examined more closely in this study.

Objective: The aim of this study is to test the feasibility and functionality of a novel DDSS prototype, exploring its potential and performance in identifying the underlying cause of acute dyspnea in patients at the University Hospital Basel.

Methods: A prospective, observational feasibility study was conducted at the emergency department (ED) and internal medicine ward of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. A convenience sample of 20 adult patients admitted to the ED with dyspnea as the chief complaint and a high probability of inpatient admission was selected. A study physician followed the patients admitted to the ED throughout the hospitalization without interfering with the routine clinical work. Routinely collected health-related personal data from these patients were entered into the DDSS prototype. The DDSS prototype's resulting disease probability list was compared with the gold-standard main diagnosis provided by the treating physician.

Results: The DDSS presented information with high clarity and had a user-friendly, novel, and transparent interface. The DDSS prototype was not perfectly suited for the ED as case entry was time-consuming (1.5-2 hours per case). It provided accurate decision support in the clinical inpatient setting (average of cases in which the correct diagnosis was the first diagnosis listed: 6/20, 30%, SD 2.10%; average of cases in which the correct diagnosis was listed as one of the top 3: 11/20, 55%, SD 2.39%; average of cases in which the correct diagnosis was listed as one of the top 5: 14/20, 70%, SD 2.26%) in patients with dyspnea as the main presenting complaint.

Conclusions: The study of the feasibility and functionality of the tool was successful, with some limitations. Used in the right place, the DDSS has the potential to support physicians in their decision-making process by showing new pathways and unintentionally ignored diagnoses. The DDSS prototype had some limitations regarding the process of data input, diagnostic accuracy, and completeness of the integrated medical knowledge. The results of this study provide a basis for the tool's further development. In addition, future studies should be conducted with the aim to overcome the current limitations of the tool and study design.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04827342; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04827342.

Keywords: DDSS; artificial intelligence; diagnostic decision support system; dyspnea; emergency department; internal medicine; probabilistic reasoning; symptom checker.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: BB, MO, SG, ET, and MCH are or were employees, contractors, or equity holders in Ada Health GmbH. All should be considered to have an interest in Ada Health GmbH

©Joanna Timiliotis, Bibiana Blümke, Peter Daniel Serfözö, Stephen Gilbert, Marta Ondrésik, Ewelina Türk, Martin Christian Hirsch, Jens Eckstein. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 24.03.2022.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Screenshot of the case analysis dashboard of the diagnostic decision support system prototype.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study process. CIS: clinical information system; DDSS: diagnostic decision support system; ED: emergency department.

References

    1. Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW. Patients' use of the internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Mar;17(3):180–5. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10603.x. jgi10603
    1. Ventola CL. Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals: uses and benefits. P T. 2014 May;39(5):356–64.
    1. Berner E. What can be done to increase the use of diagnostic decision support systems? Diagnosis (Berl) 2014 Jan 01;1(1):119–23. doi: 10.1515/dx-2013-0014./j/dx.2014.1.issue-1/dx-2013-0014/dx-2013-0014.xml
    1. Mesko B, Győrffy Z. The rise of the empowered physician in the digital health era: viewpoint. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 26;21(3):e12490. doi: 10.2196/12490. v21i3e12490
    1. Riches N, Panagioti M, Alam R, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Campbell S, Esmail A, Bower P. The effectiveness of electronic differential diagnoses (DDX) generators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0148991. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148991. PONE-D-15-38539
    1. Middleton B, Sittig DF, Wright A. Clinical decision support: a 25 year retrospective and a 25 year vision. Yearb Med Inform. 2018 Mar 06;25(S 01):S103–16. doi: 10.15265/iys-2016-s034.
    1. Densen P. Challenges and opportunities facing medical education. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2011;122:48–58.
    1. Berner E, Lande T. Clinical Decision Support Systems. Cham: Springer; 2016. Overview of clinical decision support systems.
    1. Graber MA, VanScoy D. How well does decision support software perform in the emergency department? Emerg Med J. 2003 Sep;20(5):426–8. doi: 10.1136/emj.20.5.426.
    1. Balla J, Heneghan C, Goyder C, Thompson M. Identifying early warning signs for diagnostic errors in primary care: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2012 Sep 13;2(5):e001539. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001539. bmjopen-2012-001539
    1. Ridderikhoff J, van Herk E. A diagnostic support system in general practice: is it feasible? Int J Med Informatics. 1997 Jul;45(3):133–43. doi: 10.1016/s1386-5056(97)00022-1.
    1. Ronicke S, Hirsch MC, Türk E, Larionov K, Tientcheu D, Wagner AD. Can a decision support system accelerate rare disease diagnosis? Evaluating the potential impact of Ada DX in a retrospective study. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019 Mar 21;14(1):69. doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1040-6. 10.1186/s13023-019-1040-6
    1. Kelly A, Keijzers G, Klim S, Graham CA, Craig S, Kuan WS, Jones P, Holdgate A, Lawoko C, Laribi S, AANZDEM Study Group Asia, Australia and New Zealand Dyspnoea in Emergency Departments (AANZDEM) study: rationale, design and analysis. Emerg Med Australas. 2015 Jun;27(3):187–91. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12397.
    1. Federal Act on Research involving Human Beings. Fedlex. [2022-02-09]. .
    1. Ordinance on clinical trials with the exception of clinical trials of medical devices. Fedlex. [2022-02-09]. .
    1. Nayak B, Hazra A. How to choose the right statistical test? Indian J Ophthalmol. 2011;59(2):85–6. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.77005. IndianJOphthalmol_2011_59_2_85_77005
    1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc Series B (Methodological) 2018 Dec 05;57(1):289–300. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x.
    1. Armstrong RA. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014 Sep;34(5):502–8. doi: 10.1111/opo.12131.
    1. World Medical Association World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.1760318
    1. Elkin PL, Liebow M, Bauer BA, Chaliki S, Wahner-Roedler D, Bundrick J, Lee M, Brown SH, Froehling D, Bailey K, Famiglietti K, Kim R, Hoffer E, Feldman M, Barnett GO. The introduction of a diagnostic decision support system (DXplain™) into the workflow of a teaching hospital service can decrease the cost of service for diagnostically challenging Diagnostic Related Groups (DRGs) Int J Med Inform. 2010 Nov;79(11):772–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.09.004. S1386-5056(10)00162-0
    1. Müller T, Jerrentrup A, Schäfer JR. [Computer-assisted diagnosis of rare diseases] Internist (Berl) 2018 Apr;59(4):391–400. doi: 10.1007/s00108-017-0218-z.10.1007/s00108-017-0218-z

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj