ECG Review Comparison Workflow for Quality Control Auditing

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current ECG analysis systems face inefficiencies in quality control review processes, which are cumbersome, costly, and lack effective tracking of physician performance relative to algorithmic reviews, leading to potential inaccuracies and increased healthcare delivery costs.

Innovation Solution

A system and method for reviewing ECG studies that involves selecting studies from a database, storing them for a second review, and comparing the first and second reviews to identify differences and their degrees, generating a report summarizing these differences, and utilizing a trained comparison algorithm to rank or eliminate studies, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy and reducing manual burdens.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual peer review is used to compare diagnostic reports, then diagnostic accuracy can be improved through expert evaluation, but the process becomes cumbersome and time-consuming

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvediagnostic accuracyVSAvoidreview time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual mechanical comparison of diagnostic reports with an automated computer system that uses natural language processing and semantic similarity algorithms to compare ECG interpretations, reducing time while maintaining accuracy

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system introduces an automated intermediary system that acts as a mediator between the first and second clinicians, automatically comparing their interpretations and highlighting discrepancies for review, thereby reducing the manual workload

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Reliability

If comprehensive tracking of physician performance is implemented, then quality control can be improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvequality controlVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent extracts and isolates specific tracking functions into separate modular components, focusing on capturing only the essential performance metrics (accuracy, consistency, improvement over time) rather than attempting to track all possible physician actions

Inventive Principle:

Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The system automatically generates performance reports and identifies areas for improvement without requiring manual analysis, allowing the quality control process to self-monitor and self-report

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

3Productivity

If automated algorithm review is used, then productivity increases, but measurement precision of diagnostic accuracy decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvereview speedVSAvoiddiagnostic accuracy measurement

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements feedback loops where automated comparisons of clinician interpretations against each other and against ground truth provide continuous measurement data, allowing the system to refine its accuracy assessment over time

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The automated system performs multiple functions including speed measurement, accuracy measurement, consistency tracking, and improvement monitoring within a single integrated platform, avoiding the need for separate specialized tools

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Reliability

If detailed documentation of review processes is maintained, then quality control can be audited, but manual labor and cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvequality control auditingVSAvoiddocumentation efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual documentation processes with automated electronic recording that captures all review actions, comparisons, and decisions in a structured digital format, eliminating the need for manual note-taking while enabling comprehensive auditing

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system creates and maintains digital copies of all review processes, interpretations, and comparisons in a centralized database, allowing unlimited auditing and analysis without requiring additional manual documentation effort

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

Data Source

PatentUS20260066074A1Methods and systems for quality control review of ECG analyses

Publication Date: 2026.03.05 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV

AI summary

A method for reviewing ECG studies, comprising: selecting one or more ECG studies from a database of ECG studies, wherein the one or more ECG studies have been subjected to a first review by a first clinician; storing the selected one or more ECG studies in a review database; presenting the one or more selected ECG studies to a second clinician for a second review; storing the second review in the review database; comparing the first review and the second review for each of the one or more selected ECG studies to: (i) identify one or more differences between the first review and the second review, and/or (ii) identify a degree of difference of each of the identified one or more differences between the first review and the second review; generating a report summarizing the differences and/or degree of differences for the one or more selected ECG studies.