skip to main content
research-article

POP-PL: a patient-oriented prescription programming language

Published:26 October 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Medical professionals have long used algorithmic thinking to describe and implement health care processes without the benefit of the conceptual framework provided by a programming language. Instead, medical algorithms are expressed using English, flowcharts, or data tables. This results in prescriptions that are difficult to understand, hard to debug, and awkward to reuse. This paper reports on the design and evaluation of a domain-specific programming language, POP-PL for expressing medical algorithms. The design draws on the experience of researchers in two disciplines, programming languages and medicine. The language is based around the idea that programs and humans have complementary strengths, that when combined can make for safer, more accurate performance of prescriptions. We implemented a prototype of our language and evaluated its design by writing prescriptions in the new language and administering a usability survey to medical professionals. This formative evaluation suggests that medical prescriptions can be conveyed by a programming language's mode of expression and provides useful information for refining the language. Analysis of the survey results suggests that medical professionals can understand and correctly modify programs in POP-PL.

References

  1. Salman Ahmad, Alexis Battle, Zahman Malkani, and Sepandar D. Kamvar. The Jabberwocky programming environment for structured social computing. In Proc. User Interface Software and Technology (UIST), pp. 53–64, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Apple Computer, Inc. Hypercard Script Language Guide: The Hypertalk Language. Addison-Wesley, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Daniel W. Barowy, Charlie Curtsinger, Emery D. Berger, and Andrew McGregor. AUTOMAN: a platform for integrating human-based and digital computation. In Proc. Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages & Applications (OOPSLA), pp. 639––654, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. SM Belknap, H Moore, SA Lanzotti, PR Yarnold, M Getz, DL Deitrick, A Peterson, J Akeson, T Maurer, RC Soltysik, GA Storm, and I Brooks. Application of software design principles and debugging methods to an analgesia prescription reduces risk of severe injury from medical use of opioids. Nature: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 84(3), pp. 385––392, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Steven M. Belknap. The Chicago Kinetic Simulator. The Mathmatica Journal 1, pp. 68–86, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chrisian J. Callsen and Gul Agha. Open heterogeneous computing in ActorSpace. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computer 21, pp. 289– 300, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Committee on Identifying and Preventing Medication Errors. Preventing medication errors: Quality chasm series. National Academies Press, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Maria Cvach. Monitor alarm fatigue: An integrative review. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology 46, pp. 268––277, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. R Filik, K Purdy, A Gale, and D Gerret. Labeling of medicines and patient safety: evaluating methods of reducing drug name confusion. Human Factors 48(1), pp. 39–47, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Matthew Flatt and PLT. Reference: Racket. PLT, TR-1, 2010. http:// racket-lang.org/tr1/ David M. Gaba, Mary Maxwell, and Abe DeAnda. Anesthetic mishaps: breaking the chain of accident evolution. Anesthesiology 66(5), pp. 670– 676, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Patrice M. Healey and Edwin J. Jacobson. Common Medical Diagnoses: An Algorithmic Approach. Saunders, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Carl Hewitt, Peter Bishop, and Richard Steiger. A universal modular ACTOR formalism for artificial intelligence. In Proc. International Joint Conference on Artificial intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 235–245, 1973. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Richard Hillestad, James Bigelow, Anthony Bower, Federico Girosi, Robin Meili, Richard Scoville, and Roger Taylor. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Affairs 24(5), pp. 1103–1117, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. John T. James. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. Journal of Patient Safety 8, pp. 122–128, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jan Martin Jansen, Rinus Plasmeijer, Pieter Koopman, and Peter Achten. Embedding a web-based workflow management system in a functional language. In Proc. Language Descriptions, Tools and Applications (LDTA), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Spencer S. Jones, Robert S. Rudin, Tanja Perry, and Paul G. Shekelle. Health information technology: An updated systematic review with a focus on meaningful use. Annals of Internal Medicine 106(1), pp. 48– 54, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. David A. Kindig. Some implications of patient-oriented health care. In Proc. Health Conference of the New York Academy of Medicine, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ross Koppel, Metlay Cohen, Brian Abaluck, Russell Localio, Stephen E. Kimmel, and Brian L. Strom. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 293, pp. 1197–1203, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Christopher P. Landrigan, Gareth J. Parry, Catherine B. Bones, Andrew D. Hackbarth, Donald A. Goldmann, and Paul J. Sharek. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. New England Journal of Medicine 363, pp. 2124–2134, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Lucian L. Leape. Error in medicine. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 272, pp. 1851–1857, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Bas Lijnse, Jan Martin Jansen, Ruud Nanne, and Rinus Plasmeijer. Capturing the netherlands coast guards SAR workflow with iTasks. In Proc. International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Bas Lijnse, Jan Martin Jansen, and Rinus Plasmeijer. Incidone: A taskoriented incident coordination tool. In Proc. International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Stuart B. Mushlin and Harry L. Greene II. Decision Making in Medicine (Third Edition). Mosby, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mor Peleg, Aziz A. Boxwala, Omolola Ogunyemi, Qin Zeng, Samson Tu, Ronilda Lacson, Elmer Bernstam, Nachman Ash, Peter Mork, Lucila Ohno-Machado, Edward H. Shortliff, and Robert A. Greenes. GLIF3: The evolution of a guideline representation format. In Proc. American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA), pp. 645–649, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. E. M. Schimmel. The hazards of hospitalization. Annals of Internal Medicine 60, pp. 58–63, 1964.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. M Schubert, D Ausserhofer, M Desmedt, R Schwendimann, E Lesaffre, B Li, and S De Geest. Levels and correlates of implicit rationing of nursing care in Swiss acute care hospitals—a cross sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 50, pp. 230–239, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Yuval Sharar, Silvia Miksch, and Peter Johnson. The Asgaard project: a task-specific framework for the application and critiquing of timeoriented clinical guidelines. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 14, pp. 29–51, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Hardeep Singh, Shrinidi Mani, Donna Espadas, Nancy Petersen, Veronica Franklin, and Laura A. Petersen. Prescription errors and outcomes related to inconsistent information transmitted through computerized order entry: a prospective study. Archives of Internal Medicine 169, pp. 982–989, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Ian G. Stiell, R. Douglas McKnight, Gary H. Greenberg, Ian McDowell, Rama C. Nair, George A. Wells, Cristine Johns, and James R. Worthington. Implementation of the ottawa ankle rules. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 271, pp. 827–132, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Samson W. Tu and Mark A. Musen. A flexible approach to guideline modeling. In Proc. American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA), pp. 420–424, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Washington Adventist Hospital. Weight-Based beparin orders. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. https://extranet.adventisthealthcare.com/ LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rroECsjCLnY%3D&tabid= 649&mid=1813 Paul R. Yarnold. How to assess inter-observer reliability of ratings made on ordinal scales: Evaluating and comparing the Emergency Severity Index (Version 3) and Canadian Triage Acuity Scale. Optimal Data Analysis 3, pp. 42–49, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Paul R. Yarnold and Robert C. Soltysik. Optimal Data Analysis: A Guidebook With Software for Windows. APA Books, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. POP-PL: a patient-oriented prescription programming language

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!