UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Abstract : |
| Problem Statement: Improper triage and prioritization of big-data patients may result in erroneous strategic decisions. An example of such wrong decision making includes the triage of patients with chronic heart disease to low-priority groups. Incorrect decisions may jeopardize the patients' health. Objective: This study aims to evaluate and score the big data of patients with chronic heart disease and of those who require urgent attention. The assessment is based on multicriteria decision making in a telemedical environment to improve the triage and prioritization processes Methods: A hands-on study was performed. A total of 500 patients with chronic heart disease manifested in di®erent symptoms and under various emergency levels were evaluated on the basis of the following four main measures. An electrocardiogram sensor was used to measure the electrical signals of the contractile activity of the heart over time. A SpO2 sensor was employed to determine the blood oxygen saturation levels of the patients. A blood pressure sensor was used to obtain the physiological data of the systolic and diastolic blood pressures of the patients.Finally, a non-sensory measurement (text frame) was conducted to assess chest pain and breathing. The patients were prioritized on the basis of a set of measurements by utilizing integrated back-forward adjustment for weight computation and technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution. Discussion Results: Patients with the most urgent cases were given the highest priority level, whereas those with the least urgent cases were assigned with the lowest priority level among all patients' scores. The ¯rst three patients assigned to the medical committee of doctors were proven to be the most critical emergency cases with the highest priority level on the basis of their clinical symptoms. By contrast, the last three patients were proven to be the least critical emergency cases and given the lowest priority levels relative to other patients. The throughput measurement in terms of scalability based on our proposed algorithm was more e±cient than that of the benchmark algorithm. Finally, the new method for determining the \big data" patients characteristics based on \4Vs" was suggested. |
| References |
1. T. Nguyen et al., Classi¯cation of healthcare data using genetic fuzzy logic system and wavelets, Expert Systems with Applications 42(4) (2015) 2184–2197. 2. H. Westergren, M. Ferm and P. Häggstr€om, First evaluation of the paediatric version of the Swedish rapid emergency triage and treatment system shows good reliability, Acta Paediatrica 103(3) (2014) 305–308. 3. D. Christensen et al., Nurse-administered early warning score system can be used for emergency department triage, Danish Medical Bulletin 58 (2011) A4221. 4. A. Zarabzadeh et al., Variation in health care providers' perceptions: Decision making based on patient vital signs, Journal of Decision Systems 22(3) (2013) 168–189. 5. K. Sakanushi et al., Electronic triage system: Casualties monitoring system in the disaster scene, in P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing (3PGCIC), 2011 International Conference on (2011). 6. D. Pinto Júnior, P. D. O. Salgado and T. C. M. Chianca, Predictive validity of the manchester triage system: Evaluation of outcomes of patients admitted to an emergency department, Revista Latino-americana de Enfermagem 20(6) (2012) 1041–1047. 7. O. H. Salman et al., Multi-sources data fusion framework for remote triage prioritization in telehealth, Journal of Medical Systems 38(9) (2014) 1–23. 8. B. Godfrey et al., Emergency Medical Guidelines, 3rd edn. (Sunshine Act of Florida,Florida, 2000), p. 245. 9. T. H. Sanders et al., Remote smartphone monitoring for management of Parkinson's Disease, in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (ACM, 2013). 10. A. Rocha et al., Innovations in health care services: The CAALYX system, International Journal of Medical Informatics 82(11) (2013) e307–e320. 11. R. Seising and M. E. Tabacchi, Fuzziness and Medicine: Philosophical Re°ections and Application Systems in Health Care: A Companion Volume to Sadegh-Zadeh's Handbook of Analytical Philosophy of Medicine, Vol. 302 (Springer, New York, 2013). 12. V. Yeguas and R. Casado, Big Data issues in computational chemistry, in 2014 Int. Conf. Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud) (IEEE, 2014). 13. E. Dumbill, Making sense of big data, Big Data 1(1) (2013) 1–2. 14. P. Russom, Big data analytics, TDWI Best Practices Report, Fourth Quarter (2011) 1–35. 15. C. Eaton et al., Understanding Big Data (McGraw-Hill Companies, 2012). 16. O. Team, Big Data Now: Current Perspectives from OReilly Radar (OReilly Media,2011). 17. P. Zikopoulos and C. Eaton, Understanding big data: Analytics for enterprise class hadoop and streaming data (McGraw-Hill Osborne Media, 2011). 18. P. Bellini et al., Tassonomy and review of big data solutions navigation,Big Data Computing 8(11)(2013) 1–31. 19. Y. Demchenko et al., Addressing big data issues in scienti¯c data infrastructure, in Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS),2013 Int. Conf.(IEEE, 2013). 20. F. M. Megahed and L. A. Jones-Farmer, A statistical process monitoring perspective on big data, in Frontiers in Statistical Quality Control, eds. S. Knoth and W. Wolfgang, 11th edn. (Springer, New York, 2013). 21. M. Minelli, M. Chambers and A. Dhiraj, Big Data, Big Analytics: Emerging Business Intelligence and Analytic Trends for Today'S Businesses (John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2012). 22. H. Rahman, S. Begum and M. U. Ahmed, Ins and outs of big data: A review, in The 3rd EAI International Conference on IoT Technologies for HealthCare HealthyIoT'16, 18 October 2016 (Sweden, 2017). 23. C. Au®ray et al., Making sense of big data in health research: Towards an EU action plan,Genome Medicine 8(1) (2016) 71. 24. L. Wang and C. A. Alexander, Big data in medical applications and health care, American Medical Journal 6(1) (2015) 1. 25. K. Priyanka and N. Kulennavar, A survey on big data analytics in health care, International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies 5(4) (2014) 5865–5868. 26. S. C. Helm-Murtagh, Use of big data by blue cross and blue shield of North Carolina, North Carolina Medical Journal 75(3) (2014) 195–197. 27. H. Jagadish et al., Big data and its technical challenges, Communications of the ACM 57(7) (2014) 86–94. 28. M. A. Chowdhury, W. Mciver and J. Light, Data association in remote health monitoring systems, IEEE Communications Magazine 50(6) (2012) 144–149. 29. B. Feldman, E. M. Martin and T. Skotnes, Big Data in Healthcare Hype and Hope (Dr. Bonnie, 2012), p. 360. 30. W. Raghupathi and V. Raghupathi, Big data analytics in healthcare: Promise and potential, Health Information Science and Systems 2(1) (2014) 1. 31. O. M. Ashour and G. E. Okudan, Patient sorting through emergency severity index and descriptive variables' utility, in IIE Annual Conf. Proc. (Institute of Industrial Engineers,2010). 32. O. M. Ashour and G. E. O. Kremer, Dynamic patient grouping and prioritization: A new approach to emergency department °ow improvement, Health Care Management Science 19(2) (2016) 192–205. 33. A. F. Mills, A simple yet e®ective decision support policy for mass-casualty triage, European Journal of Operational Research 253(3) (2016) 734–745. 34. A. K. Childers, M. E. Mayorga and K. M. Taa®e, Prioritization strategies for patient evacuations, Health Care Management Science 17(1) (2014) 77–87. 35. I. Sung and T. Lee, Optimal allocation of emergency medical resources in a mass casualty incident: Patient prioritization by column generation, European Journal of Operational Research 252(2) (2016) 623–634. 36. A. Elalouf and G. Wachtel, An alternative scheduling approach for improving patient- °ow in emergency departments, Operations Research for Health Care 7 (2015) 94–102. 37. D. Claudio and G. E. Okudan, Utility function-based patient prioritisation in the emergency department, European Journal of Industrial Engineering 4(1) (2010) 59–77. 38. D. Claudio et al., A dynamic multi-attribute utility theory–based decision support system for patient prioritization in the emergency department, IIE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering 4(1) (2014) 1–15. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |