Meaning Decision Support Device

Abstract

To eliminate the cause of suppressing a medical worker's subjective decision making and behavior selection.SOLUTION: A decision-making support device according to the present embodiment comprises a request unit and a determination unit. The request unit performs a notification to request a judgement on medical treatment of a patient from a plurality of medical workers. The determination unit determines, based on the state of the judgement, one or more medical workers of the plurality of medical workers as candidates for persons in charge of the medical treatment.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 3

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The embodiments disclosed in this specification and drawings relate to a decision support device. [Background technology]

[0002] In recent years, team medical care and regional medical cooperation have increased the number of opportunities for multiple medical professionals to treat a single patient, making this approach increasingly important. However, when multiple medical professionals treat a single patient, the dispersion of responsibility can lead to the "bystander effect" and "social loafing," which can result in a decline in the quality of medical care.

[0003] If the "bystander effect" or "social loafing" occurs when multiple medical professionals are treating a single patient, it may inhibit the "decision-making" of deciding what to do and what not to do, and the "action selection" of choosing specific actions from a variety of options in accordance with the decision. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0004] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2012-053552 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] One of the problems that the embodiments disclosed in this specification and drawings aim to solve is to eliminate factors that inhibit independent decision-making and behavioral selection by medical professionals. However, the problems solved by the embodiments disclosed in this specification and drawings are not limited to the above problem. Problems corresponding to the effects of each configuration shown in the embodiments described below can also be positioned as other problems. [Means for solving the problem]

[0006] The decision support device according to this embodiment includes a request unit and a determination unit. The request unit issues a notification requesting a plurality of medical professionals to make a decision regarding a patient's medical care. The determination unit determines one or more of the plurality of medical professionals as candidates to handle the medical care based on the status of the decision. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0007] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of a medical support system including a decision support device according to this embodiment. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 is a diagram showing a specific example of a medical support system including a decision support device according to this embodiment. [Figure 3] FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of the decision-making support apparatus according to this embodiment. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing the procedure of processing by the decision support device according to this embodiment. [Figure 5] FIG. 5 is a diagram for explaining a specific example of processing by the decision support device according to this embodiment. [Figure 6] FIG. 6 is a flowchart showing the procedure of the process of FIG. [Figure 7] FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displayed on a terminal of a medical worker in the decision-making support device according to this embodiment. [Figure 8] FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displayed on a terminal of a medical worker in the decision-making support device according to this embodiment. [Figure 9] FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displayed on a terminal of a medical worker in the decision-making support device according to this embodiment. [Figure 10] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displayed on a terminal of a medical worker in the decision-making support device according to this embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0008] Hereinafter, an embodiment of a decision support device will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. Note that the following description will be given taking a decision support system including the decision support device as an example.

[0009] Fig. 1 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of a medical support system 1 including a decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment. The medical support system shown in Fig. 1 includes the decision-making support device 100 and a plurality of terminals 20. The decision-making support device 100 communicates with the plurality of terminals 20.

[0010] For example, the plurality of terminals 20 include PCs (Personal Computers), tablet PCs, PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants), mobile terminals, and the like.

[0011] For example, the multiple terminals 20 are installed in a hospital and used by medical staff of the hospital. For example, the decision support device 100 is installed in a system within the hospital. Specifically, when the decision support device 100 is installed in a hospital, it is installed in, for example, a hospital information system (HIS) of the hospital.

[0012] For example, the multiple terminals 20 are provided in the patient's family hospital or in a specialized hospital separate from the hospital. For example, at least one terminal 20 of the multiple terminals 20 is provided in the patient's family hospital and used by medical professionals at the hospital. The terminals 20 other than the terminal 20 at the patient's family hospital are provided in specialized hospitals and used by medical professionals at the hospital. For example, the decision support device 100 is provided in a Clinical Decision Support (CDS) system.

[0013] In the example shown in FIG. 2 , the CDS system 3 detects a change in a patient's condition. For example, when remote monitoring reveals that a cardiac abnormality has occurred in a patient at home 2, the CDS system 3 detects signs of worsening of the patient's condition and simultaneously transmits a warning notification indicating the detected signs of worsening to the terminals 20 of multiple medical professionals. For example, when multiple medical professionals treat a single patient through team medical care, the warning notification is simultaneously transmitted to the terminals 20 in the specialized hospital 4. For example, when multiple medical professionals treat a single patient through regional medical collaboration, the warning notification is simultaneously transmitted to the terminals 20 in the specialized hospital 4 and the terminals 20 in the patient's primary care hospital 5. Note that this embodiment may also be configured such that a system other than the CDS system 3 detects a change in the patient's condition and notifies the CDS system 3 of the detection of the change in the patient's condition.

[0014] 3 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment. The decision-making support device 100 includes a communication interface 110, a memory circuitry 120, and a processing circuitry 130. The communication interface 110 is connected to the processing circuitry 130, and controls the transmission and communication of various data between the decision-making support device 100 and multiple terminals 20.

[0015] The memory circuitry 120 is connected to the processing circuitry 130 and stores various data. For example, the memory circuitry 120 is realized by a semiconductor memory element such as RAM or flash memory, a hard disk, an optical disk, or the like. The memory circuitry 120 is an example of a means for realizing a memory unit. Furthermore, the memory circuitry 120 does not have to be built into the decision support device 100 as long as the decision support device 100 can access the memory circuitry 120 over a network.

[0016] The memory circuitry 120 also stores patient information provided by a hospital. For example, the decision support device 100 is connected to an HIS server in a hospital, and the memory circuitry 120 stores patient information for each of a plurality of patients transferred from the HIS server in the hospital. Each of the plurality of patient information includes basic information and medical data of the patient. The basic information includes identification information for identifying the patient, name, date of birth, sex, blood type, height, weight, etc. The medical data includes information such as numerical values ​​(measured values) and medical records, and information indicating the date and time of recording. For example, medical data includes prescription data, nursing record data, etc. Prescription data is medical data related to prescriptions. Nursing record data is medical data related to nursing records.

[0017] The processing circuitry 130 controls the components of the decision-making support device 100. For example, as shown in FIG. 3, the processing circuitry 130 executes a request function 131, a decision function 132, and a notification control function 133. Here, for example, each processing function executed by the request function 131, the decision function 132, and the notification control function 133, which are components of the processing circuitry 130, is recorded in the storage circuitry 120 in the form of a program executable by a computer. The processing circuitry 130 is a processor that realizes a function corresponding to each program by reading and executing each program from the storage circuitry 120. In other words, the processing circuitry 130 in a state in which each program has been read will have each function shown in the processing circuitry 130 of FIG. 3. The request function 131 is an example of a request unit. The decision function 132 is an example of a decision unit.

[0018] The term "processor" used in the above description refers to a circuit such as a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a programmable logic device (e.g., a simple programmable logic device (SPLD), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), or a field programmable gate array (FPGA)). If the processor is a CPU, for example, the processor realizes its function by reading and executing a program stored in the memory circuit 120. On the other hand, if the processor is an ASIC, for example, the program is directly embedded in the processor circuit instead of storing the program in the memory circuit 120. Note that each processor in this embodiment is not limited to being configured as a single circuit, but may be configured as a single processor by combining multiple independent circuits to realize its function. Furthermore, multiple components in FIG. 3 may be integrated into a single processor to realize its function.

[0019] The above describes the overall configuration of the medical care support system according to this embodiment, including the decision-making support device 100. With this configuration, the decision-making support device 100 eliminates factors that inhibit independent decision-making and action selection by medical professionals.

[0020] In recent years, team medical care and regional medical collaboration have increased the number of opportunities for multiple medical professionals to treat a single patient, and their importance is growing. Team medical care is the provision of appropriate medical care to patients by utilizing the expertise of a wide variety of medical professionals working in the medical field and sharing roles and coordinating with each other. Regional medical collaboration is the provision of appropriate medical care to patients in a local area by utilizing the expertise of each medical institution and sharing roles and coordinating with each other.

[0021] On the other hand, when multiple medical professionals treat one patient, the dispersion of responsibility can lead to the "bystander effect" and "social loafing," which can result in a decline in the quality of medical care. The "bystander effect" is a psychological effect in which a person is less likely to take the initiative when there are bystanders (other people) around. "Social loafing" is a psychological effect in which, when working together in a group, the more people involved in the task, the more likely it is that people will slack off.

[0022] When multiple medical professionals treat a single patient, the "bystander effect" and "social loafing" may occur, potentially inhibiting the "decision-making" process of deciding what to do and what not to do, as well as the "action selection" process of choosing specific actions from various options based on the decision. For example, if remote monitoring reveals a patient's cardiac abnormality, and the medical professionals experience an unexpected deterioration in their condition, they may be forced to make the decision and select the action themselves, or the decision may be left to their own skill level, due to reasons such as "it is not possible to decide in advance who will respond," "it is not possible to discuss the response with multiple people," or "there is not enough time to consolidate the decisions of multiple people." In this case, the responsibility for decision-making and the burden of action selection increase on the medical professionals.

[0023] Therefore, the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment performs the following processes. First, in the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment, the request function 131 sends a notification requesting a plurality of medical professionals to make a decision on the patient's medical care. The determination function 132 determines one or more of the plurality of medical professionals as candidates to handle the medical care, based on the status of the decision.

[0024] The following describes the processing of the request function 131, the decision function 132, and the notification control function 133 with reference to Fig. 4. Fig. 4 is a flowchart showing the procedure of processing (decision-making support processing) by the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment.

[0025] Step S100 in Fig. 4 is a step in which the processing circuitry 130 calls up a program corresponding to the request function 131 from the storage circuitry 120 and executes the program. In step S100, the request function 131 requests all of the medical personnel to make a judgment regarding the patient's medical care. Specifically, the request function 131 simultaneously transmits a judgment request notification to the terminals 20 of the multiple medical personnel to request a judgment from the multiple medical personnel. The request function 131 then receives response results from the terminals 20 of the multiple medical personnel and acquires the status of the judgment.

[0026] Step S101 in Fig. 4 is a step in which the processing circuitry 130 calls up a program corresponding to the determination function 132 from the storage circuitry 120 and executes the program. The determination function 132 determines, based on the judgment situation, one or more medical professionals from among a plurality of medical professionals as candidates for medical professionals who will perform medical treatment for the patient, or as candidates for medical professionals who will make judgments and perform the treatment (candidate medical professionals). The determination of candidate medical professionals will be described in detail later.

[0027] Step S102 in Fig. 4 is a step in which the processing circuitry 130 calls up a program corresponding to the notification control function 133 from the storage circuitry 120 and executes the program. In step S102, the notification control function 133 notifies information about the responder candidates to at least the responder candidates among the multiple medical professionals. Specifically, the notification control function 133 transmits information about the responder candidates to at least the terminals 20 of the responder candidates. The information about the responder candidates will be described in detail later.

[0028] Fig. 5 is a diagram for explaining a specific example of processing (decision-making support processing) by the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment. Fig. 6 is a flowchart showing the procedure of the processing in Fig. 5. Figs. 7 to 10 are diagrams showing examples of screens displayed on the terminal 20 of a medical worker.

[0029] For example, in step S200 of FIG. 6, the request function 131 simultaneously sends a judgment request notification to the terminals 20 of multiple medical professionals to request them to make a judgment on the patient's medical treatment, and then receives response results from the terminals 20 of the multiple medical professionals and obtains the status of the judgment.

[0030] For example, a judgment request notice is information for requesting multiple medical professionals to make one of two different judgments regarding a patient's medical care: "Judgment A" and "Judgment B." For example, when a judgment request notice requests multiple medical professionals to decide whether or not to take emergency measures for a patient's medical care, "Judgment A" indicates that emergency measures are necessary for the patient's medical care, and "Judgment B" indicates that emergency measures are not necessary for the patient's medical care, as a response to the judgment request notice.

[0031] For example, suppose a medical professional makes a judgment of "Judgment A" in response to a judgment request notification and transmits a response result including "Judgment A" from the medical professional's terminal 20. In such a case, the response result transmitted from the terminal 20 of the medical professional who made the judgment of "Judgment A" includes information representing "Judgment A" and an identifier that identifies the medical professional. When the request function 131 receives the response result from the terminal 20 of the medical professional who made the judgment of "Judgment A," it acquires "Judgment A" as the judgment status.

[0032] For example, suppose a medical professional makes a judgment of "Judgment B" in response to a judgment request notification and transmits a response result including "Judgment B" from the medical professional's terminal 20. In such a case, the response result transmitted from the terminal 20 of the medical professional who made the judgment of "Judgment B" includes information representing "Judgment B" and an identifier that identifies the medical professional. When the request function 131 receives the response result from the terminal 20 of the medical professional who made the judgment of "Judgment B," it acquires "Judgment B" as the judgment status.

[0033] For example, suppose that among multiple medical workers, there are medical workers who have not made the judgment of "Judgment A" or "Judgment B." If no response results are received from the terminals 20 of the medical workers who have not made the judgment of "Judgment A" or "Judgment B," the request function 131 acquires "no judgment" as the judgment status for these medical workers.

[0034] In the example shown in Figure 5, the number of medical workers is six, and the judgment situations are explained as patterns P1 to P7, which are the above-mentioned patterns of "Judgment A," "Judgment B," and "No judgment." In Figures 5 and 6, among the multiple medical workers, a medical worker who has made "Judgment A" or "Judgment B" is referred to as a "Judgment Maker," and a medical worker who has not made "Judgment A" or "Judgment B" is referred to as a "Non-Judgment Maker."

[0035] FIG. 7 shows an example of a screen in which a judgment request notification is displayed on the display of each of the terminals 20 of six medical professionals. In the example shown in FIG. 7, screen 200 displayed on the display of terminal 20 includes display fields 210 and 214, a selection section 211, and buttons 212 and 213 as a judgment request notification. When CDS system 3 determines through remote monitoring that a patient's heart has become abnormal, display field 210 displays a message indicating that the CDS system 3 has detected signs of worsening of the patient's condition, such as "Signs of worsening heart failure have been detected in Shincho Taro." It also displays a message indicating that CDS system 3 has predicted the possibility that the patient's heart failure may be worsening, such as "Prediction probability: 75%." It also displays a message requesting whether or not an emergency response is required for the patient's medical care, such as "Please determine whether or not an emergency response is required and send a response." Display field 214 displays that six medical professionals have been requested to make a judgment. When a medical professional operates the button 213 "Check Data," the request function 131 of the decision-making support device 100 displays the patient information of the relevant patient from among the patient information provided from within the hospital on the display of the terminal 20. The selection unit 211 includes a selection field for "Decision A" to be selected when emergency response is required for the patient's medical care, and a selection field for "Decision B" to be selected when emergency response is not required for the patient's medical care. When the button 212 "Send," for example, is operated, the "Decision A" or "Decision B" selected by the selection unit 211 is sent from the terminal 20 to the decision-making support device 100 as a response result.

[0036] In patterns P1 to P7 in Fig. 5, the determination function 132 determines one or more medical professionals from among a plurality of medical professionals as candidates for medical personnel who will provide medical care to the patient, or as candidates for medical personnel who will make a decision on the medical care and provide it, based on the order of the decision makers (decision makers) and the content of the decision (degree of agreement of the decision) as the judgment situation. Then, the notification control function 133 notifies information about the candidate medical personnel to at least the candidate medical personnel from among the plurality of medical professionals. The determination of the candidate medical personnel, the information about the candidate medical personnel, and the determination of the candidate medical personnel will be described in detail below.

[0037] First, a description will be given of pattern P1 in Fig. 5. For example, pattern P1 indicates a pattern when steps S200, S210, S220, and S230 in Fig. 6 are executed.

[0038] That is, suppose that the request function 131 simultaneously transmits a judgment request notification to the terminals 20 of six medical professionals requesting a judgment regarding the patient's medical care (step S200 in FIG. 6), and then acquires a situation in which no response results have been received from the terminals 20 of the six medical professionals, i.e., a situation in which there are no judges (step S210 in FIG. 6), and this situation continues until a predetermined time has elapsed since the transmission of the judgment request notification (step S220 in FIG. 6). In this case, the determination function 132 determines all six medical professionals as responder candidates who will make a judgment regarding the patient's medical care and implement it. Then, the determination function 132 probabilistically selects one responder candidate from the six responder candidates (non-judgers) and determines the selected responder candidate as the judge who will make a judgment regarding the patient's medical care and the responder who will implement the patient's medical care (thick and dotted lines in pattern P1 in FIG. 5) (step S230 in FIG. 6). The notification control function 133 notifies the six non-judgement candidate responders of confirmation information indicating that the judge and implementer responder have been confirmed, and also notifies the medical personnel who have been confirmed as responders that they have been confirmed as the judge and implementer.

[0039] Next, a description will be given of pattern P2 in Fig. 5. For example, pattern P2 indicates a pattern when steps S200, S211, S221, and S231 in Fig. 6 are executed.

[0040] That is, after the request function 131 simultaneously transmits a judgment request notification to the terminals 20 of six medical professionals requesting a judgment on the patient's medical care to the six medical professionals (step S200 in FIG. 6), it acquires a situation in which it receives a response result from the terminal 20 of one of the six medical professionals (for example, the judge (1) in pattern P2 in FIG. 5), that is, a situation in which there is only one judge (steps S210 to S211 in FIG. 6), and this situation continues until a predetermined time has elapsed since the transmission of the judgment request notification (step S221 in FIG. 6). In this case, the determination function 132 determines to adopt "Decision A" as the judgment made by the one medical professional (thick line in pattern P2 in FIG. 5), and determines the remaining five non-judges as responder candidates who are candidates for responders who will perform the patient's medical care. The decision function 132 then probabilistically selects one of the five responder candidates (non-judgers), and determines the selected responder candidate as the responder who will provide medical care to the patient (dotted line in pattern P2 in FIG. 5) (step S231 in FIG. 6). The notification control function 133 notifies the five non-judger responder candidates of confirmation information indicating that the responder who will provide medical care has been confirmed, and notifies the medical professional who has been confirmed as the responder that he or she has been confirmed as the medical professional who will provide medical care. In pattern P2, the medical professional who first made "Judgment A" does not have to provide medical care, and the medical professional who becomes the implementer has a reduced burden of responsibility for decision-making to the extent that a medical professional other than himself or herself made "Judgment A."

[0041] Next, a description will be given of pattern P3 in Fig. 5. For example, pattern P3 indicates a pattern when steps S200, S212, S213, and S232 in Fig. 6 are executed.

[0042] That is, after the request function 131 simultaneously transmits a judgment request notification to the terminals 20 of six medical professionals requesting a judgment on the patient's medical care to the six medical professionals (step S200 in FIG. 6), it sequentially receives response results from the terminals 20 of two of the six medical professionals (for example, judges (1) and (2) in pattern P3 in FIG. 5), that is, it acquires a situation in which there are two judges (steps S210 to S212 via steps S211 in FIG. 6), and the judgments agree by a difference of two votes or more (step S213 in FIG. 6). In such a case, the determination function 132 determines the two medical professionals who made the same judgment, "Judgment A" (thick lines in pattern P3 in FIG. 5), as candidates for the responder who will perform the patient's medical care. The decision function 132 then decides which of the two candidate responders (judgers) made the final decision as the responder who will be the implementer who will provide medical care to the patient (dotted line in pattern P3 in FIG. 5) (step S232 in FIG. 6). The notification control function 133 notifies the two candidate responders who are judges of decision information indicating that the implementer responder has been decided, and notifies the medical professional who has been decided as the responder that he or she has been decided as the implementer. In pattern P3, the medical professional who first made "decision A" does not have to implement the medical care, and the medical professional who has become the implementer has a reduced burden of responsibility for decision-making due to the fact that two medical professionals, including himself or herself, made the decision to "decision A."

[0043] FIG. 8 shows an example of a screen in which confirmation information is displayed on the display of the terminal 20 of one of the six medical workers who is the implementer. In the example shown in FIG. 8, the screen 200 displayed on the display of the terminal 20 includes display fields 230 and 231 and link information 232. In the example shown in FIG. 8, the display field 230 displays a message indicating that the decision on the patient's medical care has been finalized, such as "Final decision has been finalized." It also displays a graph indicating that no medical workers selected "Decision A" as requiring emergency treatment for the patient's medical care and that two medical workers selected "Decision B" as not requiring emergency treatment for the patient's medical care. The display field 231 displays a message indicating that one of the six medical workers is the implementer, such as "You have been confirmed as the implementer. Please take the following steps." For example, after providing medical care to a patient, the implementer medical worker records the results of the medical care in the patient information for that patient. Specifically, when the practitioner operates the link information 232 "Enter results in medical record", the notification control function 133 of the decision support device 100 accesses the HIS server in the hospital using the link information 232 and displays the patient information of the relevant patient among the patient information stored in the HIS server on the display of the terminal 20. The notification control function 133 records the results of medical treatment in the patient information of the relevant patient in response to the operation of the practitioner's terminal 20.

[0044] Here, state A in Figure 5 will be described. In state A in Figure 5, after the request function 131 simultaneously transmits a judgment request notification to the terminals 20 of six medical professionals requesting that the six medical professionals make a judgment on the patient's medical care (step S200 in Figure 6), two of the six medical professionals are judges and the remaining four medical professionals are non-judges. For example, the request function 131 acquires, as the judgment status, the judgment result of the first medical professional who made a judgment (judge (1) in state A in Figure 5) is "Judgment A," the judgment result of the second medical professional who made a judgment (judge (2) in state A in Figure 5) is "Judgment B," and "no judgment" for the remaining four medical professionals (non-judges).

[0045] In state A of FIG. 5, there are two or more judges (step S212 of FIG. 6), but the judgments of the two judges are inconsistent (the difference in votes is less than two) (step S214 of FIG. 6). That is, the decision function 132 determines that the judgment situation is inconsistent. Here, if this situation occurs and a predetermined time has elapsed since the notification of the judgment request (step S222 of FIG. 6; No), a re-request for judgment on medical treatment is made. Specifically, the decision function 132 determines the remaining four medical professionals (non-judgers) who have not made a judgment as candidates for those who will make a judgment on the patient's medical treatment, and the request function 131 discloses the current judgment situation to the remaining four medical professionals and notifies them of a re-request for judgment on medical treatment (steps S240 and S241 of FIG. 6). For example, the request function 131 simultaneously sends a re-request notification to the terminals 20 of the remaining four medical professionals, which includes information to disclose the current judgment status, information indicating that there is no difference in the number of judgments made, and information to request a re-judgment on the patient's medical treatment.

[0046] FIG. 9 shows an example of a screen in which a re-request notification is displayed on the display of the terminal 20 of the remaining four of the six medical professionals who have not yet made a decision. In the example shown in FIG. 9, a screen 200 displayed on the display of the terminal 20 includes display fields 240 and 242 and a button 241. In the example shown in FIG. 9, the display field 240 displays a message indicating a re-request for a decision on the patient's medical care, such as "Reminder regarding signs of worsening heart failure for Shincho Taro," a message indicating that a final decision is pending, such as "Responses are split, so additional responses are being accepted," and a graph indicating that one medical professional has selected that an emergency response is required for the patient's medical care and one medical professional has selected that an emergency response is not required for the patient's medical care. The display field 214 indicates that four medical professionals have been requested to make a re-request. For example, if at least one of the remaining four medical workers operates the button 241 "Go to answer screen", the request function 131 of the decision support device 100 displays a screen such as that shown in Figure 7 on the display of the terminal 20 of the medical worker who operated the button 241 "Go to answer screen".

[0047] Here, in state A of Figure 5, if the request function 131 discloses the current judgment status and re-requests a judgment, one of patterns P4 to P7 described below will be executed depending on whether the judgment status has changed or whether a predetermined time has passed since the re-request.

[0048] First, we will explain pattern P4 in Fig. 5. For example, pattern P4 indicates a pattern when steps S200, S212, S214, and S222 are No, steps S240, S241, S212, S214, and S222 are Yes, step S223 is Yes, and step S230 is executed.

[0049] That is, even if the request function 131 makes a re-request, no medical professional is available to make a judgment before a predetermined time has elapsed. In this case, there are two or more judges (step S212 in FIG. 6), but the judgments of the two judges remain inconsistent (less than two votes apart) (step S214 in FIG. 6), and this situation continues until a predetermined time has elapsed since the judgment request notice was sent (step S222 in FIG. 6; Yes). In this case, since there is no difference in the number of judges who made "Judgment A" and the number of judges who made "Judgment B," with a difference of zero votes (step S223 in FIG. 6; Yes), the determination function 132 determines the remaining four medical professionals as candidates who will make a judgment on and implement the patient's medical care. The determination function 132 then probabilistically selects one of the remaining four responder candidates (non-judgers), and determines the selected responder candidate as the judge who will make a decision on the patient's medical care and the responder who will be the implementer who will carry out the patient's medical care (thick and dotted lines in pattern P4 in FIG. 5) (step S230 in FIG. 6). The notification control function 133 notifies the four non-judger responder candidates of determination information indicating that the responders who are the judges and implementers have been determined, and notifies the medical personnel determined as the responders that they have been determined as the judges and implementers.

[0050] Next, a description will be given of pattern P5 in Fig. 5. For example, pattern P5 indicates a pattern when steps S200, S212, S214, and S222 are No, steps S240, S241, S212, S214, and S222 are Yes, step S223 is No, and step S231 are executed.

[0051] That is, after the request function 131 makes a re-request, it is assumed that there is one medical professional who makes a judgment before a predetermined time has elapsed (steps S240, S241, and S212 in FIG. 6). For example, the request function 131 acquires, as the judgment status, the judgment result of the medical professional who made the judgment after the re-request (judge (3) in pattern P5 in FIG. 5) is "Judgment A," and "No judgment" for the remaining three medical professionals (non-judges). In this case, although there are two or more judges (step S212 in FIG. 6), the judgments of the two judges remain in disagreement (less than two votes apart) (step S214 in FIG. 6), and this situation continues until a predetermined time has elapsed since the judgment request notification was sent (step S222 in FIG. 6; Yes). In this case, because the difference between the number of judges who made the "Judgment A" and the number of judges who made the "Judgment B" is one vote (step S223 in FIG. 6; No), the decision function 132 decides to adopt "Judgment A" as the judgment made by one medical professional (thick line in pattern P5 in FIG. 5), and determines the remaining three medical professionals as responder candidates who will provide medical care to the patient. Then, the decision function 132 probabilistically selects one of the remaining three responder candidates (non-judgers) and determines the selected responder candidate as the implementer who will provide medical care to the patient (dotted line in pattern P5 in FIG. 5) (step S231 in FIG. 6). The notification control function 133 notifies the three non-judger candidates of confirmation information indicating that the implementer responder has been determined, and notifies the medical professional determined as the implementer that he or she has been determined as the implementer. In pattern P5, the medical professional who made "Decision A" does not have to carry out the medical treatment, and the medical professional who becomes the implementer has a reduced burden of responsibility for decision-making to the extent that "Decision A" was made by a medical professional other than himself.

[0052] Next, a description will be given of pattern P6 in Fig. 5. For example, pattern P6 indicates a pattern when steps S200, S212, S214, and S222 are No, steps S240, S241, S212, S214, and S222 are Yes, step S223 is Yes, and step S230 is executed.

[0053] That is, after the request function 131 makes a re-request, two medical professionals make different decisions before a predetermined time has elapsed (steps S240, S241, and S212 in FIG. 6). For example, the request function 131 acquires, as the judgment status, the judgment result of the medical professional who made the first judgment after the re-request (decision maker (3) in pattern P6 in FIG. 5) is "Decision A," the judgment result of the medical professional who made the next judgment (decision maker (4) in pattern P6 in FIG. 5) is "Decision B," and "no judgment" for the remaining two medical professionals (non-decision makers). In this case, although there are two or more judges (step S212 in FIG. 6), the judgments of the two judges remain in disagreement (less than two votes apart) (step S214 in FIG. 6), and this situation continues until a predetermined time has elapsed since the judgment request notification was sent (step S222 in FIG. 6; Yes). In this case, since there is no difference in the number of judges who made "Judgment A" and the number of judges who made "Judgment B," i.e., the difference in votes is 0 (step S223 in FIG. 6; Yes), the determination function 132 determines the remaining two medical professionals as responder candidates who will make a judgment on and implement the patient's medical care.The determination function 132 then determines one of the remaining two responder candidates (non-judgers) as the judge who will make a judgment on the patient's medical care and the responder who will implement the patient's medical care (thick and dotted lines in pattern P6 in FIG. 5) (step S230 in FIG. 6).The notification control function 133 notifies the two non-judger responder candidates of confirmation information indicating that the judge and implementer responders have been confirmed, and notifies the medical professional determined as the responder that they have been confirmed as the judge and implementer.

[0054] Next, a description will be given of pattern P7 in Fig. 5. For example, pattern P7 indicates a pattern when steps S200, S212, S214, No of S222, S240, S241, S212, S213, and S232 in Fig. 6 are executed.

[0055] That is, after the request function 131 makes a re-request, it is assumed that two medical personnel make the same judgment before a predetermined time has elapsed (steps S240, S241, and S212 in FIG. 6). For example, the request function 131 acquires the judgment status as follows: the judgment result of the medical personnel who made the first judgment after the re-request (judge (3) in pattern P7 in FIG. 5) is "Judgment A," the judgment result of the medical personnel who made the next judgment (judge (4) in pattern P7 in FIG. 5) is also "Judgment A," and the judgment result of the remaining two medical personnel (non-judges) is "No judgment." In this case, it is assumed that there are two or more judges (step S212 in FIG. 6) and their judgments are consistent by a difference of two or more votes (step S213 in FIG. 6). In this case, the determination function 132 determines the three medical personnel who made the same judgment, "Judgment A" (thick lines in pattern P7 in FIG. 5), as responder candidates who will provide medical care to the patient. The decision function 132 then decides the responder candidate who made the last decision among the three responder candidates (judgers) as the responder who will be the implementer who will provide medical care to the patient (dotted line in pattern P7 in FIG. 5) (step S232 in FIG. 6). The notification control function 133 notifies the three responder candidates who are judges of decision information indicating that the responder who will be the implementer has been decided, and notifies the medical worker who has been decided as the responder that he or she has been decided as the implementer. In pattern P7, the medical worker who made the decision "Judgment A" early on does not have to implement medical care, and the medical worker who has become the implementer has a reduced burden of responsibility for decision-making to the extent that three medical workers, including himself or herself, made the decision "Judgment A."

[0056] In the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, one of six medical professionals is selected as the responder. Alternatively, each medical professional may be invited to volunteer as the responder. For example, in state A of FIG. 5, there are two or more judges, but the judgments of the two judges disagree (the difference in votes is less than two). That is, the decision function 132 determines that the judgment status disagrees. Here, the decision function 132 selects the medical professional who made the judgment regarding the patient's medical care as a candidate for the responder, and the notification control function 133 notifies the medical professional who made the judgment regarding the patient's medical care of the current judgment status and sends a notification urging them to carry out the medical care.

[0057] FIG. 10 shows an example of a screen displaying progress information on the display of the terminal 20 of the medical worker who made the second-fastest decision among the six medical workers in state A of FIG. 5 . In the example shown in FIG. 10 , a screen 200 displayed on the display of the terminal 20 includes display fields 220 and 221 and a button 222. In the example shown in FIG. 10 , the display field 220 displays a message indicating that a response has been received, such as "Response received," and a message indicating that a final decision is pending, such as "Responses are split, so the final decision is pending." As an indication of the current decision status, a graph indicating that one medical worker has selected that emergency treatment is required for the patient's treatment and one medical worker has selected that emergency treatment is not required for the patient's treatment is also displayed in the display field 221. Furthermore, the message "If you are willing to respond, please press the button below" is displayed, inviting candidates to make a decision on the patient's treatment and implement it. For example, when one of six medical workers volunteers to be the responder, if the medical worker operates the button 222 "Take action" located below the display field 221, the decision-making function 132 of the decision-making support device 100 determines the medical worker who operated the button 222 "Take action" as the responder.

[0058] 7 to 10, in the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, two types of judgments, "Judgment A" and "Judgment B," are requested as judgments regarding the patient's medical care by the judgment request notice and the re-request notice. However, this is not limited to this, and three or more types of judgments regarding the patient's medical care may be requested. Furthermore, in the example shown in FIG. 10, when it is determined that the judgment status is inconsistent, the current judgment status is made public to the medical professional who made the judgment regarding the patient's medical care, and a notice is sent urging the medical care provider to provide medical care. However, this may be done at the same time as the re-request. In other words, a notice urging the medical care provider to provide medical care may also be sent in the re-request notice.

[0059] As explained above, the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment notifies multiple healthcare professionals requesting a decision on a patient's medical care, and selects one or more of the healthcare professionals as candidates to be assigned to the medical care based on the status of the decision. This eliminates factors that inhibit healthcare professionals from making independent decisions and selecting actions. For example, when remote monitoring reveals that a patient has a cardiac abnormality, if the patient's condition worsens unexpectedly, the healthcare professionals' responsibility for decision-making and the burden of selecting actions increase for reasons such as "not being able to select a healthcare professional to be assigned in advance," "not being able to discuss the response with multiple people," and "not having time to consolidate the opinions of multiple people." However, with the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment, a healthcare professional who makes an early decision does not have to perform medical care, and the healthcare professional who becomes the assigned healthcare professional has a reduced burden of responsibility for decision-making to the extent that decisions made by healthcare professionals other than the healthcare professional or by healthcare professionals including the healthcare professional themselves are made.

[0060] Furthermore, the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment determines one or more of multiple medical professionals as candidate responders based on the judgment situation, thereby achieving the effect of shortening the time until response due to the medical professionals making a decision earlier. Furthermore, while the opinion of the majority may be adopted when making a decision, the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment can achieve the effect of increasing the accuracy of decision-making by adopting the opinion of the majority when multiple medical professionals make the same judgment in a judgment situation. Thus, the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment achieves the above-mentioned effects, thereby improving treatment outcomes and patient prognosis.

[0061] (Other embodiments) Although the present embodiment has been described above, the present invention may be embodied in various different forms other than the above-described present embodiment.

[0062] For example, in the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, multiple medical professionals to be requested to make a decision on a patient's medical care may be dynamically determined based on the characteristics of the target patient or the characteristics of the target decision content. For example, in the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, multiple medical professionals are determined based on a medical care event. Specifically, in the medical care of a patient with a specific complication as a medical care event, the request function 131 requests multiple medical professionals with specific expertise in that medical care to make a decision on that medical care. For example, in the medical care event where the patient's medical care is highly urgent, the request function 131 requests multiple medical professionals with a certain number of years of experience to make a decision on that medical care. Note that the multiple medical professionals to be requested to make a decision do not necessarily have to be individuals, but may be a hospital or a department.

[0063] Whether or not to apply the decision support process (this method) shown in Figures 4 to 10 may be dynamically determined depending on the number of medical professionals, the characteristics of the target patient, and the characteristics of the target decision content. For example, if there are only a few medical professionals, this method is not applied, and the decision status is made public as needed to medical professionals in team medical care or regional medical cooperation. For example, if the prediction reliability in patient treatment is high, this method is not applied, and the recommended decision is notified directly to medical professionals in team medical care or regional medical cooperation.

[0064] For example, in the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, the predetermined number (e.g., a difference of two votes) and the predetermined time may be dynamically determined according to the characteristics of the target judgment content. For example, in the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, the predetermined number and the predetermined time are determined according to the medical event. Specifically, when the medical event indicates a high level of urgency in the patient's medical care, the request function 131 sets the predetermined time to a short period and requests judgments on the medical care from multiple medical professionals. Furthermore, in the examples shown in FIGS. 5 to 10, the criterion for determining whether the judgment situations are consistent or inconsistent is a difference of two votes or more. However, this is not limited to this. For example, the predetermined number may be a difference of three votes or more, or a difference of a multiple such as two or three, depending on the medical event.

[0065] For example, if the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment is provided in a CDS system 3, when the CDS system 3 detects signs of worsening of a patient's condition, the CDS system 3 is in a state of recommending therapeutic intervention. However, when the request function 131 transmits a judgment request notice to the terminals 20 of multiple medical professionals to request a judgment on the patient's medical care, the judgment request notice may not include a recommendation for therapeutic intervention by the CDS system 3. For example, when a patient visits an emergency department, if the request function 131 requests multiple medical professionals to make a decision on whether to hospitalize the patient or to send the patient home after treatment, the judgment request notice may not include a recommendation for therapeutic intervention by the CDS system 3.

[0066] On the other hand, in the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, a recommendation for therapeutic intervention by the CDS system 3 may be counted as one or more votes. For example, when a request for a decision is made, it is assumed that one judge already exists for the therapeutic intervention recommendation by the CDS system 3. Specifically, it is assumed that one judge already exists for the therapeutic intervention recommendation by the CDS system 3, which indicates that an emergency response is required for the patient's medical care. In this way, the decision situation includes the decision content recommended by the CDS system 3. However, the CDS system 3 is not included in the candidate responders. For example, if one medical professional makes "Decision A" and the remaining five medical professionals (non-judgers) have not made a decision, then the number of judges who made "Decision A" is actually one. However, when the decision content recommended by the CDS system 3 is reflected, the number of judges who made "Decision A" is two. In this case, the number of matching judgments is equal to or greater than a predetermined number (for example, a difference of two votes), but the CDS system 3 is not included in the candidate responders, so the decision-making function 132 selects the medical professional who made "Judgment A" as a candidate responder, and since there is only one candidate responder, the decision-making function 132 selects the medical professional who made "Judgment A" as the responder who will implement the patient's medical treatment. In this way, in the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment, by including the judgment content recommended by the CDS system 3 in the judgment situation, the burden of responsibility for decision-making on the medical professional who becomes the implementer is reduced.

[0067] For example, in the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, in patterns P1, P4, and P6 in Fig. 5, the determination function 132 probabilistically determines one responder candidate from the remaining responder candidates (non-judgers) as the decider who will make a decision on the patient's medical care and the responder who will implement the patient's medical care, but weighting such as the probability or vote weight when probabilistically selecting responders may be set for each medical professional. For example, in the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, a weighting is set for each of the multiple medical professionals, and the determination function 132 determines the responder using the weighting set for each of the multiple responder candidates.

[0068] Here, the determination function 132 changes the probability that each of the multiple candidate responders will be selected as a responder based on the weighting set for each of the multiple candidate responders. For example, if the medical professional is the attending physician or a medical specialist in the disease, the probability of selection for that medical professional is set high. Specifically, the selection probability is set high based on the past accuracy rate (if a truly correct answer can be obtained, it may be considered the correct answer, or the final selected judgment may be considered the correct answer). In this case, the determination function 132 uses the changed probability for the remaining candidate responders (non-judgers) to determine one of the remaining candidate responders as the responder.

[0069] Alternatively, the determination function 132 changes the weight of the vote of each of the multiple responder candidates based on the weighting set for each of the multiple responder candidates. For example, the determination function 132 changes the weight of the vote of each of the multiple responder candidates to 1.5 votes or 2 votes depending on the number of times the candidate has previously served as a responder. In this case, the determination function 132 uses the changed vote weight for the remaining responder candidates (non-judgers) to determine one of the remaining responder candidates as the responder candidate.

[0070] In this way, in the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, by setting weights for each of multiple medical professionals, the medical professional with a higher weighting is more likely to be the responder, thereby improving treatment outcomes and patient prognosis.

[0071] For example, in the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment, if there is a person responsible for making decisions in team medical care or regional medical cooperation, the notification control function 133 may prompt the person responsible for confirmation before finalizing the candidate responder or the responder. Furthermore, in the decision-making support device 100 according to this embodiment, the names of medical professionals may be made public or anonymous when making a notification. For example, when the request function 131 simultaneously transmits a judgment request notification to multiple medical professionals to request them to make a decision on a patient's medical care to the multiple medical professionals' terminals 20, the request function 131 may make the names of each of the multiple medical professionals public in the judgment request notification, or may notify the medical professional receiving the judgment request notification of the names of medical professionals other than the medical professional in question anonymously (for example, "five other people"). In addition, when the request function 131 simultaneously sends a re-request notice to the remaining medical personnel's terminals 20, which includes information indicating that there will be no difference in the number of judgments made and information for re-requesting a judgment on the patient's medical treatment as information for disclosing the current judgment status, the request function 131 may disclose the names of each of the remaining medical personnel in the re-request notice, or may notify the medical personnel receiving the re-request notice of the names of medical personnel other than the medical personnel in question anonymously (for example, ``three others'').

[0072] For example, the request function 131 may anonymously notify the names of medical professionals other than the medical professional receiving the judgment request notice or re-request notice without revealing the names of the multiple medical professionals, thereby preventing the "bystander effect" or "social loafing" that occurs when the names of medical professionals lead to leaving things to others. Note that when the request function 131 sends a judgment request notice to the terminals 20 of multiple medical professionals, it may send the judgment request notice to each of the terminals 20 of the multiple medical professionals with a time lag. Similarly, when the request function 131 sends a re-request notice to the terminals 20 of the remaining medical professionals, it may send the re-request notice to each of the terminals 20 of the remaining medical professionals with a time lag.

[0073] In the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, in patterns P4 to P7 in Fig. 5, if the decision making status is determined to be inconsistent after a predetermined time has elapsed since the request was made, the decision making function 132 decides on a medical professional who has not made a decision on the medical treatment as a candidate for the responder. Specifically, the request function 131 simultaneously transmits a decision request notice to the terminals 20 of the multiple medical professionals requesting a decision on the patient's medical treatment from the multiple medical professionals (step S200 in Fig. 6). Thereafter, if there are two or more judges (step S212 in Fig. 6) but the judges' decisions are inconsistent (the difference is less than two votes) (step S214 in Fig. 6), the request function 131 discloses the current decision making status to the remaining medical professionals and notifies them of a request for a new decision on the medical treatment within a predetermined time from the time of sending the decision request notice (step S222 in Fig. 6; No). Then, if the judges' judgments remain in disagreement (less than two votes apart) after a predetermined time has elapsed (steps S212, S214, S222 in FIG. 6; Yes), the decision function 132 determines the medical worker who has not made a judgment on the medical treatment as a candidate for the responder in step S223 and thereafter in FIG. 6. However, this is not limited to this.

[0074] For example, in the decision support device 100 according to this embodiment, in patterns P4 to P7 in Fig. 5, if the decision function 132 determines that the judgment status is inconsistent when a predetermined time has elapsed since the re-request, it may decide that a medical professional who has not made a judgment on the medical treatment is a candidate for the responder. Specifically, the request function 131 simultaneously transmits a judgment request notice to the terminals 20 of multiple medical professionals to request a judgment on the patient's medical treatment from the multiple medical professionals. Thereafter, if there are two or more judges but the judges' judgments are inconsistent (the difference is less than two votes), the request function 131 waits until a predetermined time has elapsed since transmitting the judgment request notice. Next, if the judges' judgments are inconsistent when the predetermined time has elapsed, the request function 131 discloses the current judgment status to the remaining medical professionals and notifies them of a request to make a judgment on the medical treatment again. If the judges' decisions remain in disagreement (less than two votes apart) after a specified time has passed even after a re-request, the decision function 132 will determine the medical professional who has not made a decision on the medical treatment as the candidate to respond.

[0075] Note that the components of each device illustrated in the present embodiment are functional concepts and do not necessarily have to be physically configured as illustrated. In other words, the specific form of distribution and integration of each device is not limited to that illustrated, and all or part of them can be functionally or physically distributed and integrated in any unit depending on various loads, usage conditions, etc. Furthermore, all or any part of the processing functions performed by each device can be realized by a CPU and a program analyzed and executed by the CPU, or can be realized as hardware using wired logic.

[0076] The method described in this embodiment can be realized by executing a prepared program on a computer such as a personal computer or a workstation. This program can be distributed via a network such as the Internet. This program can also be recorded on a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium such as a hard disk, flexible disk (FD), CD-ROM, MO, or DVD, and executed by being read from the recording medium by a computer.

[0077] According to at least one of the embodiments described above, factors that inhibit independent decision-making and action selection by medical personnel can be eliminated.

[0078] Although several embodiments have been described, these embodiments are presented as examples and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. These embodiments can be implemented in various other forms, and various omissions, substitutions, modifications, and combinations of embodiments can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention. These embodiments and their modifications are included within the scope and spirit of the invention, as well as within the scope of the invention and its equivalents as defined in the claims. [Explanation of symbols]

[0079] 100 Decision support equipment 131 Request Function 132 Decision Function 133 Notification Control Function

Claims

1. A requesting unit that sends a notification requesting a plurality of medical professionals to make a decision regarding a patient's medical treatment; a determination unit that determines one or more medical professionals from the plurality of medical professionals as candidates for a medical care provider based on the content of the determination and the order in which the determination was made; Equipped with When it is determined that the contents of the judgment are inconsistent, the determination unit determines the medical worker who has not made the judgment on the medical care as a candidate for a responder who will make the judgment on the medical care, The request unit notifies the candidate responder of a request for a re-determination of the medical treatment together with the current determination content. Decision support equipment.

2. When it is determined that the contents of the judgment are inconsistent at a time when a predetermined time has elapsed since the request or the re-request was made, the determination unit determines a medical worker who has not made a judgment on the medical treatment as a candidate responder, and determines one medical worker probabilistically selected from the candidate responders as a responder who will perform the medical treatment, or a responder who will make a judgment on the medical treatment and perform it. The decision support device of claim 1 .

3. A requesting unit that sends a notification requesting a plurality of medical professionals to make a decision regarding the medical treatment of a patient; a determination unit that determines one or more medical professionals from the plurality of medical professionals as candidates for a medical care provider based on the content of the determination and the order in which the determination was made; Equipped with When a predetermined time has elapsed since the request was made and none of the plurality of medical workers have made a decision on the medical treatment, the decision unit determines the plurality of medical workers as candidates for the responder, and determines one medical worker probabilistically selected from the plurality of medical workers as the responder who will make a decision on the medical treatment and implement it. Decision support equipment.

4. A requesting unit that sends a notification requesting a plurality of medical professionals to make a decision regarding the medical treatment of a patient; a determination unit that determines one or more medical professionals from the plurality of medical professionals as candidates for a medical care provider based on the content of the determination and the order in which the determination was made; Equipped with When a predetermined time has elapsed since the request was made and only one of the plurality of medical workers has made a decision on the medical treatment, the decision unit adopts the decision of the medical worker, determines medical workers other than the one medical worker as candidates for the responder, and determines one medical worker probabilistically selected from the candidate responders as the responder who will perform the medical treatment. Decision support equipment.

5. A requesting unit that sends a notification requesting a plurality of medical professionals to make a decision regarding the medical treatment of a patient; a determination unit that determines one or more medical professionals from the plurality of medical professionals as candidates for a medical care provider based on the content of the determination and the order in which the determination was made; Equipped with If the contents of the judgment are determined to be a match before a predetermined time has elapsed since the request was made, the determination unit determines the medical worker who made the judgment that is determined to be a match as the candidate responder, and determines the medical worker who last made the judgment that is determined to be a match among the candidate responders as the responder who will perform the medical treatment. Decision support equipment.

6. A requesting unit that sends a notification requesting a plurality of medical professionals to make a decision regarding the medical treatment of a patient; a determination unit that determines one or more medical professionals from the plurality of medical professionals as candidates for a medical care provider based on the content of the determination and the order in which the determination was made; A notification control unit; Equipped with When it is determined that the contents of the judgment are inconsistent, the determination unit determines the medical worker who made the judgment on the medical treatment as the candidate for the responder; The notification control unit notifies the candidate of the medical treatment together with the current judgment content to encourage the candidate to perform the medical treatment. Decision support equipment.

7. The criteria for determining whether the content of the judgment is a match or a mismatch are determined according to a medical event.

7. The decision support device according to claim 1, 2, 5 or 6.

8. The predetermined time is determined according to a medical event. The decision support device according to any one of claims 2 to 5.

9. A requesting unit that sends a notification requesting a plurality of medical professionals to make a decision regarding the medical treatment of a patient; a determination unit that determines one or more medical professionals from the plurality of medical professionals as candidates for a medical care provider based on the content of the determination and the order in which the determination was made; Equipped with a weighting is assigned to each of the plurality of medical professionals; the determination unit determines the respondent by using a weighting set for each of the plurality of respondent candidates. Decision support equipment.

10. the determination unit changes the probability that each of the plurality of candidate responders will be selected as the responder based on a weighting set for each of the plurality of candidate responders.

10. The decision support device of claim 9.

11. the determining unit changes the weight of the vote of each of the plurality of candidate responders based on the weighting set for each of the plurality of candidate responders; 10. The decision support device of claim 9.

12. When the request unit sends a notice requesting a re-request for judgment to each of the medical professionals who have not made the judgment, the request unit anonymously notifies the medical professional who receives the notice of the re-request for judgment of the names of medical professionals other than the medical professional in question; The decision support device according to any one of claims 9 to 11.

13. The request unit re-requests the judgment to each of the medical professionals who have not made the judgment at a time lag. The decision support device according to any one of claims 9 to 12.

14. The plurality of medical personnel are determined according to a medical event. A decision support device according to any one of claims 1 to 13.

15. A requesting unit that sends a notification requesting a plurality of medical professionals to make a decision regarding the medical treatment of a patient; a determination unit that determines one or more medical professionals from the plurality of medical professionals as candidates for a medical care provider based on the content of the determination and the order in which the determination was made; Equipped with When the request unit anonymously notifies each of the plurality of medical professionals of the request for judgment, the request unit anonymously notifies the medical professional who receives the notification of the request for judgment of the names of medical professionals other than the medical professional. Decision support equipment.

16. the request unit requests each of the plurality of medical workers to make the judgment at different times. A decision support device according to any one of claims 1 to 15.

17. the decision support device is provided in a system for detecting a change in the patient's condition; A decision support device according to any one of claims 1 to 16.

18. The content of the judgment includes a content of judgment recommended by the system, and the determination unit determines the candidate of the responder based on the content of the judgment.

18. The decision support device of claim 17.

Images