Mitigating Racial And Ethnic Bias And Advancing Health Equity In Clinical Algorithms: A Scoping Review

Advancing Health Equity Through Artificial Intelligence: An Educational Framework for Preparing Nurses in Clinical Practice and Research

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health care offers the potential to enhance patient care, improve diagnostic precision, and broaden access to health-care services. Nurses, positioned at the forefront of patient care, play a pivotal role in utilizing AI to foster a more efficient and equitable health-care system. However, to fulfil this role, nurses will require education that prepares them with the necessary skills and knowledge for the effective and ethical application of AI. This article proposes a framework for nurses which includes AI principles, skills, competencies, and curriculum development focused on the practical use of AI, with an emphasis on care that aims to achieve health equity. By adopting this educational framework, nurses will be prepared to make substantial contributions to reducing health disparities and fostering a health-care system that is more efficient and equitable.

Translating ethical and quality principles for the effective, safe and fair development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence technologies in healthcare

OBJECTIVE

The complexity and rapid pace of development of algorithmic technologies pose challenges for their regulation and oversight in healthcare settings. We sought to improve our institution's approach to evaluation and governance of algorithmic technologies used in clinical care and operations by creating an Implementation Guide that standardizes evaluation criteria so that local oversight is performed in an objective fashion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Building on a framework that applies key ethical and quality principles (clinical value and safety, fairness and equity, usability and adoption, transparency and accountability, and regulatory compliance), we created concrete guidelines for evaluating algorithmic technologies at our institution.

RESULTS

An Implementation Guide articulates evaluation criteria used during review of algorithmic technologies and details what evidence supports the implementation of ethical and quality principles for trustworthy health AI. Application of the processes described in the Implementation Guide can lead to algorithms that are safer as well as more effective, fair, and equitable upon implementation, as illustrated through 4 examples of technologies at different phases of the algorithmic lifecycle that underwent evaluation at our academic medical center.

DISCUSSION

By providing clear descriptions/definitions of evaluation criteria and embedding them within standardized processes, we streamlined oversight processes and educated communities using and developing algorithmic technologies within our institution.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a scalable, adaptable framework for translating principles into evaluation criteria and specific requirements that support trustworthy implementation of algorithmic technologies in patient care and healthcare operations.

A Nationwide Network of Health AI Assurance Laboratories

Importance

Given the importance of rigorous development and evaluation standards needed of artificial intelligence (AI) models used in health care, nationwide accepted procedures to provide assurance that the use of AI is fair, appropriate, valid, effective, and safe are urgently needed.

Observations

While there are several efforts to develop standards and best practices to evaluate AI, there is a gap between having such guidance and the application of such guidance to both existing and new AI models being developed. As of now, there is no publicly available, nationwide mechanism that enables objective evaluation and ongoing assessment of the consequences of using health AI models in clinical care settings.

Conclusion and Relevance

The need to create a public-private partnership to support a nationwide health AI assurance labs network is outlined here. In this network, community best practices could be applied for testing health AI models to produce reports on their performance that can be widely shared for managing the lifecycle of AI models over time and across populations and sites where these models are deployed.

Challenging Disability Discrimination in the Clinical Use of PDMP Algorithms

State prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) use proprietary, predictive software platforms that deploy algorithms to determine whether a patient is at risk for drug misuse, drug diversion, doctor shopping, or substance use disorder (SUD). Clinical overreliance on PDMP algorithm-generated information and risk scores motivates clinicians to refuse to treat-or to inappropriately treat-vulnerable people based on actual, perceived, or past SUDs, chronic pain conditions, or other disabilities. This essay provides a framework for challenging PDMP algorithmic discrimination as disability discrimination under federal antidiscrimination laws, including a new proposed rule interpreting section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.

Guiding Principles to Address the Impact of Algorithm Bias on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health and Health Care

Importance

Health care algorithms are used for diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, risk stratification, and allocation of resources. Bias in the development and use of algorithms can lead to worse outcomes for racial and ethnic minoritized groups and other historically marginalized populations such as individuals with lower income.

Objective

To provide a conceptual framework and guiding principles for mitigating and preventing bias in health care algorithms to promote health and health care equity.

Evidence Review

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities convened a diverse panel of experts to review evidence, hear from stakeholders, and receive community feedback.

Findings

The panel developed a conceptual framework to apply guiding principles across an algorithm's life cycle, centering health and health care equity for patients and communities as the goal, within the wider context of structural racism and discrimination. Multiple stakeholders can mitigate and prevent bias at each phase of the algorithm life cycle, including problem formulation (phase 1); data selection, assessment, and management (phase 2); algorithm development, training, and validation (phase 3); deployment and integration of algorithms in intended settings (phase 4); and algorithm monitoring, maintenance, updating, or deimplementation (phase 5). Five principles should guide these efforts: (1) promote health and health care equity during all phases of the health care algorithm life cycle; (2) ensure health care algorithms and their use are transparent and explainable; (3) authentically engage patients and communities during all phases of the health care algorithm life cycle and earn trustworthiness; (4) explicitly identify health care algorithmic fairness issues and trade-offs; and (5) establish accountability for equity and fairness in outcomes from health care algorithms.

Conclusions and Relevance

Multiple stakeholders must partner to create systems, processes, regulations, incentives, standards, and policies to mitigate and prevent algorithmic bias. Reforms should implement guiding principles that support promotion of health and health care equity in all phases of the algorithm life cycle as well as transparency and explainability, authentic community engagement and ethical partnerships, explicit identification of fairness issues and trade-offs, and accountability for equity and fairness.