Acceptability of the decision support for safer surgery tool

An integrative review on the acceptance of artificial intelligence among healthcare professionals in hospitals

Artificial intelligence (AI) in the domain of healthcare is increasing in prominence. Acceptance is an indispensable prerequisite for the widespread implementation of AI. The aim of this integrative review is to explore barriers and facilitators influencing healthcare professionals' acceptance of AI in the hospital setting. Forty-two articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Pertinent elements to the study such as the type of AI, factors influencing acceptance, and the participants' profession were extracted from the included studies, and the studies were appraised for their quality. The data extraction and results were presented according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. The included studies revealed a variety of facilitating and hindering factors for AI acceptance in the hospital setting. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) were the AI form included in most studies (n = 21). Heterogeneous results with regard to the perceptions of the effects of AI on error occurrence, alert sensitivity and timely resources were reported. In contrast, fear of a loss of (professional) autonomy and difficulties in integrating AI into clinical workflows were unanimously reported to be hindering factors. On the other hand, training for the use of AI facilitated acceptance. Heterogeneous results may be explained by differences in the application and functioning of the different AI systems as well as inter-professional and interdisciplinary disparities. To conclude, in order to facilitate acceptance of AI among healthcare professionals it is advisable to integrate end-users in the early stages of AI development as well as to offer needs-adjusted training for the use of AI in healthcare and providing adequate infrastructure.

Effects of Computerized Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review

Background

Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are software programs that support the decision making of practitioners and other staff. Other reviews have analyzed the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. These reviews reported positive practitioner performance in over half the articles analyzed, but very little information was found for patient outcomes.

Objective

The purpose of this review was to analyze the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient medical outcomes. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were queried.

Methods

Articles were chosen based on year published (last 10 years), high quality, peer-reviewed sources, and discussion of the relationship between the use of CDSS as an intervention and links to practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers used an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation) to collect information on the relationship between CDSSs and practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers also collected observations of participants, intervention, comparison with control group, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) along with those showing implicit bias. Articles were analyzed by multiple reviewers following the Kruse protocol for systematic reviews. Data were organized into multiple tables for analysis and reporting.

Results

Themes were identified for both practitioner performance (n=38) and medical outcomes (n=36). A total of 66% (25/38) of articles had occurrences of positive practitioner performance, 13% (5/38) found no difference in practitioner performance, and 21% (8/38) did not report or discuss practitioner performance. Zero articles reported negative practitioner performance. A total of 61% (22/36) of articles had occurrences of positive patient medical outcomes, 8% (3/36) found no statistically significant difference in medical outcomes between intervention and control groups, and 31% (11/36) did not report or discuss medical outcomes. Zero articles found negative patient medical outcomes attributed to using CDSSs.

Conclusions

Results of this review are commensurate with previous reviews with similar objectives, but unlike these reviews we found a high level of reporting of positive effects on patient medical outcomes.

Clinical prediction rules: A systematic review of healthcare provider opinions and preferences

OBJECTIVE

The act of predicting clinical endpoints and patient trajectories based on past and current states is on the precipice of a technological revolution. This systematic review summarises the available evidence describing healthcare provider opinions and preferences with respect to the use of clinical prediction rules. The primary goal of this work is to inform the design and implementation of future systems, and secondarily to identify gaps for the development of clinician education programs.

METHODS

Five databases were systematically searched in May 2016 for studies collecting empirical opinions of healthcare providers regarding clinical prediction rule usage. Reference lists were scanned for additional eligible materials and an update search was made in August 2017. Data was extracted on high-level study features, before in-depth thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

45 articles were identified from 9 countries. Most studies utilised surveys (28) or interviews (14). Fewer employed focus groups (9) or formal usability testing (4). Three high-level themes were identified, which form the basis of healthcare provider opinions of clinical prediction rules and their implementation - utility, credibility and usability.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the objections and preferences stated by healthcare providers are inherent to the nature of the clinical problem addressed, which may or may not be within the designer's capacity to change; however, others (in particular - actionability, validation, integration and provision of high quality education materials) should be considered by prediction rule designers and implementation teams, in order to increase user acceptance and improve uptake of these tools. We summarise these findings across the clinical prediction rule lifecycle and pose questions for the rule developers, in order to produce tools that are more likely to successfully translate into clinical practice.