The separation of reviewing knowledge from medical knowledge

Abstract

The developers of reviewing systems that rely on computer-based patient-record systems as a source of data need to model reviewing knowledge and medical knowledge. We simulate how the same medical knowledge could be entered in four different systems: CARE, the Arden syntax, Essential-attending and HyperCritic. We subsequently analyze how the original knowledge is represented in the symbols or syntax used by these systems. We conclude that these systems provide different alternatives in dealing with the vocabulary provided by the computer-based patient records. In addition, the use of computer-based patient records for review poses new challenges for the content of that record: to facilitate review, the reasoning of the physician needs to be captured in addition to the actions of the physician.