Identifying Crucial Know-How and Knowing-That for Medical Decision Support

Identifying Crucial Know-How and Knowing-That for Medical Decision Support

Sahar Ghrab (Department of Computer Science, Higher Institute of Computer Science and Multimedia, Sfax, Tunisia) and Inès Saad (France Business School, Amiens, France)
Copyright: © 2016 |Pages: 20
DOI: 10.4018/IJDSST.2016100102
OnDemand PDF Download:
No Current Special Offers


In this paper, the authors propose a multi-criteria methodology for identifying “Crucial Know-How/Knowing-That”. Know-How and Knowing-That are two kinds of knowledge. Know-How is a disposition to perform a type of action whereas Knowing-That is a belief state and concerns a description which can be factual or propositional. The category of “crucial Know-How/Knowing-That” represents the subset of Know-How/Knowing-That sufficient for Know-How/Knowing-That capitalization. The authors are interested in special Know-How/Knowing-that called “Likely Crucial Know-How/Knowing-That” which represent the set of Know-How/Knowing-That under validation and experimentation and can be crucial in the short or medium term. For thus, a new decision class is attributed to this category of Know-How/Knowing-That. The methodology is composed of three phases: (i) the construction of the preference model of decision maker, (ii) the evaluation of “crucial Know-How/Knowing-That” and (iii) the sorting of this set of Know-How/Knowing-That. The methodology is experimented in the ASHMS organization and validated in the medical field.
Article Preview

1. Introduction

Confronted with demands of care quality, optimality, dynamicity and complexity, medicine is obliged to well manage their medical knowledge which is in increasing (Chen et al., 2011; Kim, 2014; Kothari et al., 2011; Panahi et al., 2012; Stroetmann and Aisenbrey, 2012). For reaching this objective, each healthcare organization must integrate a healthcare knowledge management (Charlet, 2002; Nadeem et al., 2012; Olaolorun and Oladejo, 2012).

Medical or healthcare knowledge is created through different modes like communication, exchanging and sharing knowledge (Ting et al., 2010) between practitioners, interrogation examination and assessment stored in medical record and other knowledge related to experience and skills (Charlet, 2002; Chen, 2013; Henry, 2010; Kothari et al., 2012; Tsui et al., 2014). This knowledge can be classified into two types: explicit knowledge which is easy to identify and locate. It is stored in good practices, theoretical knowledge, medical records and others medical papers whereas the second type is related to tacit knowledge which is embedded in healthcare professionals’ mind. It represents their competencies, their experiences, their talents and their know-how. This type of knowledge is difficult to locate and not always accessible.

Taking into account these points, healthcare organizations are becoming aware of tacit knowledge (Abidi et al., 2005) and grant a special attention to tacit knowledge to avoid its miss-use and loss (Erden, 2008; Henry, 2010; Kinchin et al., 2008; Kothari et al., 2012; Mahroeian and Forozia, 2012; Parpandel, 2013; Polanyi, 1967; Reinders, 2010; Wang and Tian, 2012).

Many works in the literature are proposed to demonstrate the importance of knowledge management and knowledge engineering in medicine. (Hojabri et al., 2012, Al-Khasawneh and Hijazi, 2014, Pietro et al., 2014) stress the impact of using telemedicine on knowledge management in healthcare organizations. They propose a new framework and a model to explain how knowledge sharing and organizational learning occur in telemedical practices. (Edenius et al., 2010) explain how knowledge can be managed across boundaries when implementing innovations in the healthcare sector (healthcare quality register). The findings of this study describe knowledge through three levels (syntactic level, semantic level and pragmatic level. (Tian, 2011) improves knowledge management between primary and secondary healthcare by using e-referral (an electronically transmitted referral message) which facilitates the generation, capturing and sharing patients’ information between primary and secondary health providers.

In the literature, most of works proposed don’t give a meticulous and clear definition of knowledge although many disciplines talk about knowledge: in philosophy (Fantl, 2012; Schwartz, 2011), in strategic management (Pesqueux, 2010), in knowledge management (Grant, 1997; Kogut and Zander, 1992), in knowledge engineering and in others disciplines.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Open Access Articles
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2022): Forthcoming, Available for Pre-Order
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2021): 2 Released, 2 Forthcoming
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2009)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing