A multinational study on artificial intelligence adoption: Clinical implementers' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Despite substantial progress in AI research for healthcare, translating research achievements to AI systems in clinical settings is challenging and, in many cases, unsatisfactory. As a result, many AI investments have stalled at the prototype level, never reaching clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

To improve the chances of future AI implementation projects succeeding, we analyzed the experiences of clinical AI system implementers to better understand the challenges and success factors in their implementations.

METHODS

Thirty-seven implementers of clinical AI from European and North and South American countries were interviewed. Semi-structured interviews were transcribed and analyzed qualitatively with the framework method, identifying the success factors and the reasons for challenges as well as documenting proposals from implementers to improve AI adoption in clinical settings.

RESULTS

We gathered the implementers' requirements for facilitating AI adoption in the clinical setting. The main findings include 1) the lesser importance of AI explainability in favor of proper clinical validation studies, 2) the need to actively involve clinical practitioners, and not only clinical researchers, in the inception of AI research projects, 3) the need for better information structures and processes to manage data access and the ethical approval of AI projects, 4) the need for better support for regulatory compliance and avoidance of duplications in data management approval bodies, 5) the need to increase both clinicians' and citizens' literacy as respects the benefits and limitations of AI, and 6) the need for better funding schemes to support the implementation, embedding, and validation of AI in the clinical workflow, beyond pilots.

CONCLUSION

Participants in the interviews are positive about the future of AI in clinical settings. At the same time, they proposenumerous measures to transfer research advancesinto implementations that will benefit healthcare personnel. Transferring AI research into benefits for healthcare workers and patients requires adjustments in regulations, data access procedures, education, funding schemes, and validation of AI systems.

Proceedings from the 2022 ACR-RSNA Workshop on Safety, Effectiveness, Reliability, and Transparency in AI

Despite the surge in AI development for healthcare applications, particularly for medical imaging applications, there has been limited adoption of such AI tools into clinical practice. During a one-day workshop in November, 2022, co-organized by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), participants outlined experiences and problems with implementing AI in clinical practice, defined the needs of various stakeholders in the AI ecosystem, and elicited potential solutions and strategies related to the safety, effectiveness, reliability, and transparency of AI algorithms. Participants included radiologists from academic and community radiology practices, informatics leaders responsible for AI implementation, regulatory agency employees, and specialty society representatives. The major themes that emerged fell into two categories: 1) AI product development and 2) implementation of AI-based applications in clinical practice. In particular, participants highlighted key aspects of AI product development to include clear clinical task definitions; well-curated data from diverse geographic, economical, and healthcare settings; standards and mechanisms to monitor model reliability; and transparency regarding model performance, both in controlled and real-world settings. For implementation, participants emphasized the need for strong institutional governance; systematic evaluation, selection, and validation methods carried out by local teams; seamless integration into the clinical workflow; performance monitoring and support by local teams; performance monitoring by external entities; and alignment of incentives through credentialing and reimbursement. Participants predicted that clinical implementation of AI in radiology will continue to be limited until the safety, effectiveness, reliability, and transparency of such tools are more fully addressed.

Systematic review and longitudinal analysis of implementing Artificial Intelligence to predict clinical deterioration in adult hospitals: what is known and what remains uncertain

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors influencing implementation of machine learning algorithms (MLAs) that predict clinical deterioration in hospitalized adult patients and relate these to a validated implementation framework.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of studies of implemented or trialed real-time clinical deterioration prediction MLAs was undertaken, which identified: how MLA implementation was measured; impact of MLAs on clinical processes and patient outcomes; and barriers, enablers and uncertainties within the implementation process. Review findings were then mapped to the SALIENT end-to-end implementation framework to identify the implementation stages at which these factors applied.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles relating to 14 groups of MLAs were identified, each trialing or implementing a bespoke algorithm. One hundred and seven distinct implementation evaluation metrics were identified. Four groups reported decreased hospital mortality, 1 significantly. We identified 24 barriers, 40 enablers, and 14 uncertainties and mapped these to the 5 stages of the SALIENT implementation framework.

DISCUSSION

Algorithm performance across implementation stages decreased between in silico and trial stages. Silent plus pilot trial inclusion was associated with decreased mortality, as was the use of logistic regression algorithms that used less than 39 variables. Mitigation of alert fatigue via alert suppression and threshold configuration was commonly employed across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

: There is evidence that real-world implementation of clinical deterioration prediction MLAs may improve clinical outcomes. Various factors identified as influencing success or failure of implementation can be mapped to different stages of implementation, thereby providing useful and practical guidance for implementers.

Introducing the "AI Language Models in Health Care" Section: Actionable Strategies for Targeted and Wide-Scale Deployment

The realm of health care is on the cusp of a significant technological leap, courtesy of the advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) language models, but ensuring the ethical design, deployment, and use of these technologies is imperative to truly realize their potential in improving health care delivery and promoting human well-being and safety. Indeed, these models have demonstrated remarkable prowess in generating humanlike text, evidenced by a growing body of research and real-world applications. This capability paves the way for enhanced patient engagement, clinical decision support, and a plethora of other applications that were once considered beyond reach. However, the journey from potential to real-world application is laden with challenges ranging from ensuring reliability and transparency to navigating a complex regulatory landscape. There is still a need for comprehensive evaluation and rigorous validation to ensure that these models are reliable, transparent, and ethically sound. This editorial introduces the new section, titled "AI Language Models in Health Care." This section seeks to create a platform for academics, practitioners, and innovators to share their insights, research findings, and real-world applications of AI language models in health care. The aim is to foster a community that is not only excited about the possibilities but also critically engaged with the ethical, practical, and regulatory challenges that lie ahead.

Implementation frameworks for end-to-end clinical AI: derivation of the SALIENT framework

OBJECTIVE

To derive a comprehensive implementation framework for clinical AI models within hospitals informed by existing AI frameworks and integrated with reporting standards for clinical AI research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

(1) Derive a provisional implementation framework based on the taxonomy of Stead et al and integrated with current reporting standards for AI research: TRIPOD, DECIDE-AI, CONSORT-AI. (2) Undertake a scoping review of published clinical AI implementation frameworks and identify key themes and stages. (3) Perform a gap analysis and refine the framework by incorporating missing items.

RESULTS

The provisional AI implementation framework, called SALIENT, was mapped to 5 stages common to both the taxonomy and the reporting standards. A scoping review retrieved 20 studies and 247 themes, stages, and subelements were identified. A gap analysis identified 5 new cross-stage themes and 16 new tasks. The final framework comprised 5 stages, 7 elements, and 4 components, including the AI system, data pipeline, human-computer interface, and clinical workflow.

DISCUSSION

This pragmatic framework resolves gaps in existing stage- and theme-based clinical AI implementation guidance by comprehensively addressing the what (components), when (stages), and how (tasks) of AI implementation, as well as the who (organization) and why (policy domains). By integrating research reporting standards into SALIENT, the framework is grounded in rigorous evaluation methodologies. The framework requires validation as being applicable to real-world studies of deployed AI models.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel end-to-end framework has been developed for implementing AI within hospital clinical practice that builds on previous AI implementation frameworks and research reporting standards.

Clinical use of artificial intelligence requires AI-capable organizations

Artificial intelligence-based algorithms are being widely implemented in health care, even as evidence is emerging of bias in their design, problems with implementation, and potential harm to patients. To achieve the promise of using of AI-based tools to improve health, healthcare organizations will need to be AI-capable, with internal and external systems functioning in tandem to ensure the safe, ethical, and effective use of AI-based tools. Ideas are starting to emerge about the organizational routines, competencies, resources, and infrastructures that will be required for safe and effective deployment of AI in health care, but there has been little empirical research. Infrastructures that provide legal and regulatory guidance for managers, clinician competencies for the safe and effective use of AI-based tools, and learner-centric resources such as clear AI documentation and local health ecosystem impact reviews can help drive continuous improvement.

Deployment of machine learning algorithms to predict sepsis: systematic review and application of the SALIENT clinical AI implementation framework

OBJECTIVE

To retrieve and appraise studies of deployed artificial intelligence (AI)-based sepsis prediction algorithms using systematic methods, identify implementation barriers, enablers, and key decisions and then map these to a novel end-to-end clinical AI implementation framework.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematically review studies of clinically applied AI-based sepsis prediction algorithms in regard to methodological quality, deployment and evaluation methods, and outcomes. Identify contextual factors that influence implementation and map these factors to the SALIENT implementation framework.

RESULTS

The review identified 30 articles of algorithms applied in adult hospital settings, with 5 studies reporting significantly decreased mortality post-implementation. Eight groups of algorithms were identified, each sharing a common algorithm. We identified 14 barriers, 26 enablers, and 22 decision points which were able to be mapped to the 5 stages of the SALIENT implementation framework.

DISCUSSION

Empirical studies of deployed sepsis prediction algorithms demonstrate their potential for improving care and reducing mortality but reveal persisting gaps in existing implementation guidance. In the examined publications, key decision points reflecting real-word implementation experience could be mapped to the SALIENT framework and, as these decision points appear to be AI-task agnostic, this framework may also be applicable to non-sepsis algorithms. The mapping clarified where and when barriers, enablers, and key decisions arise within the end-to-end AI implementation process.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review of real-world implementation studies of sepsis prediction algorithms was used to validate an end-to-end staged implementation framework that has the ability to account for key factors that warrant attention in ensuring successful deployment, and which extends on previous AI implementation frameworks.

Artificial Intelligence Implementation in Healthcare: A Theory-Based Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators

There is a large proliferation of complex data-driven artificial intelligence (AI) applications in many aspects of our daily lives, but their implementation in healthcare is still limited. This scoping review takes a theoretical approach to examine the barriers and facilitators based on empirical data from existing implementations. We searched the major databases of relevant scientific publications for articles related to AI in clinical settings, published between 2015 and 2021. Based on the theoretical constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we used a deductive, followed by an inductive, approach to extract facilitators and barriers. After screening 2784 studies, 19 studies were included in this review. Most of the cited facilitators were related to engagement with and management of the implementation process, while the most cited barriers dealt with the intervention's generalizability and interoperability with existing systems, as well as the inner settings' data quality and availability. We noted per-study imbalances related to the reporting of the theoretic domains. Our findings suggest a greater need for implementation science expertise in AI implementation projects, to improve both the implementation process and the quality of scientific reporting.