Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 6 Next »

MedBiquitous Virtual Patients (MVP)

An Architectural Model for MedBiquitous Virtual Patients

Draft White Paper
Version 6: September 11, 2006

Rachel Ellaway, Chris Candler, Peter Greene and Valerie Smothers - MedBiquitous Virtual Patient Working Group (with additional input from the MedBiquitous Technical Steering Group)

1: General Principles

MedBiquitous is developing a data standard for the exchange and reuse of virtual patients. This will be the MedBiquitous Virtual Patient (or MVP) standard. A working definition of a virtual patient is:
An interactive computer simulation of real-life clinical scenarios for the purpose of medical training, education, or assessment. Users may be learners, teachers, or examiners.

This document outlines a proposed structure and possible implementations of the MVP standard currently under development. The proposed structure allows for a wide variety of educational approaches and technologies. The appendix provides some exemplar use case scenarios, including the following:

  • Learners access virtual patient data and associated media resources in a self-directed fashion.
  • Learners participate in a problem-based learning activity which includes concomitant virtual patient data.
  • Learners access a longitudinal, activity-based virtual patient with integrated media resources and collaborative learning tools.
  • Learners participate in a multi-player game with integrated learning activities, virtual patient data, and media resources for each case.

2: Proposed MVP Architecture

There are many different ways that virtual patients can be created and employed. The MVP data standard must therefore be sufficiently abstract and adaptable so that it can accommodate a number of forms and uses.
The proposed architecture consists of five MVP components (see section 3), each of which can be accessed and assembled in a number of different ways (see section 4). These components are rendered for use through different kinds of players, depending on the activity at hand and other local choices and requirements. These five and other related (but out of scope) components such as user input and feedback, student profiles, and tracking are shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: components of the MVP architecture

3: MVP Components

There are five core MVP components:

1. Virtual Patient Data (VPD)

The VPD provides the personal and clinical data that is relevant to the clinical scenario being simulated. The VPD is a bit like a clinical chart, being divided into sections that correspond to the medical history, physical examination, laboratory and radiology data, and procedure and outcome data.

An XML model is being developed for this component that enables a flexible approach to the data. Data within each section is tagged with identifiers so that patient data can be disclosed progressively. The data can be disclosed to the learner en bloc, or the data can be structured so that it can be disclosed iteratively in response to specific learner requests, with the XML allowing the encoding of both the request and the response information as is logical for each section:

  • Medical History: questions and answers
  • Physical Examination: examinations and finding
  • Laboratory tests: tests and results
  • Radiographic tests: tests and results
  • Procedures: procedures and outcomes

Each of the sections may include subsections that further refine the information available. The Medical History section, for example, may include subsections for present illness, past history, family and social history, etc.

Most of the VPD data is provided in unstructured text, but certain sections may be highly structured and encoded with healthcare terminologies (RxNorm for medications and SNOMED for allergies, problems, and procedures). If this encoding is present, it could enable the learner to interact with clinical decision support systems during the virtual patient learning activity.

2. Media Resources (MR)

Media resources are all of the images, animations, videos, and audio files that are associated with the virtual patient at any point during the simulated patient scenario. As with the specific portions of the VPD data, the media resources are tagged with identifiers so that they the can be made available at the right time to the learner. IMS Content Packaging will be used to catalogue media resources and provide unique identifiers.

3. Data Availability Model (DAM)

This component enables the sequencing and progressive disclosure of data encoded in the VPD and associated media resources. The Data Availability Model references the identifiers within the VPD and sites specific media resources to allow for the targeted or progressive release of parts of the VPD or individual media resources.

Note that the state model defines whether the consuming player application is cumulative (items from lower state values remain available) or selective (only items within the current state are available). The state model also allows for the encoding of non-linear or branching activities, with user decisions (or indecisions) determining when and which state is reached next.

The Data Availability Model exists separately from the VPD and media resources components because it is quite possible that the same underlying clinical scenario could be used by very different player applications, each of which has a Data Availability Model that encodes the appropriate level of complexity.

4. Activity Model (AM)

This component encodes how the learner will be able to engage with the virtual patient. A number of different learner activities are possible with the same underlying virtual patient dataset, and the activity model component encodes the activities available, often including the narrative context. Examples of activity models are:

  1. Observation: The learner is presented with a 'page turner' and is allowed to observe how a clinical scenario unfolds. (This might be appropriate for beginner students that are not ready to make interventional decisions).
  2. Free Navigation: The learner is presented with clinical materials which are linking to a variety of references (journal articles, books, data sets, decision support systems, etc) that they are free to navigate in an unrestricted fashion.
  3. Diagnosis Formulation: The leaner is asked to formulate a differential diagnosis at each stage of the progressive disclosure of the clinical scenario.
  4. Decision Making: The leaner is asked to make clinical decisions based on current information and acquires new information as a result of different decisions.

For each of these activity models, the corresponding Data Availability Model must be designed in concert to support the activity, and these two components will typically work closely together. For example, the observation activity would work with a Data Availability Model that was cumulative and linear, whereas the decision making activity would require a Data Availability Model that is selective and branching.

Different players (see below) will need to interface with the VPD, Data Availability Model, and media resources components, but not necessarily all of them. It is a fundamental requirement of the MVP standard that VPD and activity model components are able to function independently of each other. Thus a paper case could be derived directly from a VPD and an activity based on clinical decision pathways could be designed without direct dependence on a particular VPD data set.

5. Global State Model (GSM)

This component provides the top-level modelling of student activity and the logic for the allocation and regulation of activities. It is only relevant for the more advanced kinds of applications; for example, it might provide information about how a particular virtual patient interacts with other virtual patients in a multi-player educational game.

4. External Components

In addition to the five MVP components, there are several applications and data sets that are related but external to the MVP standard:

  • Player: This is the application that presents the virtual patient to the user and gathers and processes user input. It is anticipated that there will be many different kinds of virtual patient players, depending both on the kind of user activity or rendering required and on the local online learning environments used. A virtual patient player could run inside a Web browser and be coded in Javascript or Flash (such as the University College of Dublin system), or the player could be a server-based application (such as the systems developed at the Karolinska Institute, Harvard Shapiro Institute, Tufts, Pittsburgh, NYU), or the player could be an online game (as is being developed at the University of Edinburgh).
  • Learner Tracking: This component captures and stores interactions and performance metrics about the learner from the player component. Tracking data could be added to a learner profile or provided as de-briefing feedback for a learner.
  • Learner Profile: This component is a dataset of information about the user. It includes two kinds of information:
    • General user information: user identity data (such as their name), as well as their current courses (or programme of study), personal user preferences such as choice of language, required disability support features or choice of stylesheets, and academic data such as assessment data.
    • Virtual patient usage information: tracking data, records of which virtual patients have previously been accessed (including progress markers) and their relation to study markers such as learning objectives and outcomes.

5: Levels of MVP Complexity

Section 2 of this document described the overall MVP architecture and section 3 enumerated its components. This section describes how the components are related and how they can be connected to create a learning experience.

The principle behind the MVP architecture is that it is highly adaptable and configurable to different kinds of settings and applications. These have been classified according to their complexity in levels 1-4, each of which is described in turn.

Figure 2: Level 1: MVP components are accessed directly with no dependency on one another. In this example, patient data, supporting media resources, and activity model data can be accessed through the player without any interrelationships between the components.
(empty line)

Figure 3: Level 2: In this level, MVP components are (statically) referenced through others so that they appear as a coherent whole. In the example above, virtual patient data and media resources are referenced within an activity model.
(empty line)

Figure 4: Level 3: Some components are (dynamically) referenced through others so that they appear as a coherent whole. In this example patient data and media resources are referenced in an activity model accessed through a Data Availability Model.
(empty line)

Figure 5: Level 4: Any number of Level 1, 2 or 3 structures are coordinated by a global state model and rendering mechanism. In this example two separate Level 3 activities are referenced through a single global state model.
(empty line)

Virtual patient applications at specific complexity levels can be created in a number of different ways. A number of examples are listed in table 1 with links to their respective use case scenarios in the appendix.




Use Case



Just the virtual patient personal and clinical data




Just resources representing the virtual patient




Just the virtual patient activity (such as 'clerk this patient')




Personal and clinical virtual patient data organised into state levels and thereby set up for filtered release.




Virtual patient media resources organised into state levels and thereby set up for filtered release (such as video clips outlining the progression of a consultation).




Activity components organised into state levels and thereby set up for parsing. For instance parts of an activity only become available once other parts have been completed.




Activity model drawing upon VPD data




Activity model drawing upon resources




Activity model drawing upon VIRTUAL PATIENT data and media resources via Data Availability Model (DAM) levels



GSM + AM + DAMs + VPDs + MR

A series of activities governed by a global state model (GSM) - each activity may be level 1, 2 or 3.


Table 1: different kinds of complexity level examples with links to appropriate use case scenarios.

6: Interoperability and Runtime

Originally, standards like the one in discussion here were intended merely to provide interoperability between different systems. However, while this pertains for non-dynamic areas such as metadata and learner profiles, it is less so for dynamic areas, in particular those that encode or are related directly to human activity, of which IMS Learning Design is a good example. In this latter case there are implications for both interoperability and runtime.

This section is provided as an indication of how MVP components could be instantiated in runtime environments and uses a number of UML sequence diagrams to show how different components in different kinds of applications communicate and interoperate with each other.

Figure 6: a Level 1 application where VPD data and media resources are accessed directly by the player (see use case scenario 1 in appendix).
(empty line)

Figure 7: a Level 2 application where VPD data and media resources are accessed via an activity model (see use case scenario 2 in appendix).
(empty line)

Figure 8: a Level 3 application where VPD data is accessed by an activity model via an intermediary Data Availability Model (see use case scenario 3 in appendix).
(empty line)

Figure 9: a Level 4 application where a global state model first selects an activity model that accesses other MVP components, then a second presentation of components alone (see use case scenario 4 in appendix). Note that getComponents is a simplified version of the different kinds of Level 2 and 3 applications described earlier.
(empty line)

6: Development Roadmap

It is clear that the proposed MVP architecture will not be developed over night and it should also be noted that the MVP architecture is not being introduced de novo; there are both extant MVP architectures (for instance in most of the MVP working group's participants schools) and extant learning technology and healthcare interoperability standards and specifications. The development roadmap must accommodate these factors.
The proposed development stages are as follows:

  • A common Virtual Patient Data model
  • Media Resources
  • Data Availability Models
  • Activity Models
  • Inter-component messaging
  • Players
  • Connectivity and messaging with other systems

The first stage to be tackled will be the development of the VP data model (See Figure 10). One advantage of the multi-component and multi-complexity level approach is that it allows the near-term deployment of simpler MVPs as the standard is emerging.

  • No labels