Physicians' required competencies in AI-assisted clinical settings: a systematic review.

IF 6.7 2区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Lotte Schuitmaker, Jojanneke Drogt, Manon Benders, Karin Jongsma
{"title":"Physicians' required competencies in AI-assisted clinical settings: a systematic review.","authors":"Lotte Schuitmaker, Jojanneke Drogt, Manon Benders, Karin Jongsma","doi":"10.1093/bmb/ldae025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) in clinical settings may offer significant benefits. A roadblock to the responsible implementation of medical AI is the remaining uncertainty regarding requirements for AI users at the bedside. An overview of the academic literature on human requirements for the adequate use of AI in clinical settings is therefore of significant value.</p><p><strong>Sources of data: </strong>A systematic review of the potential implications of medical AI for the required competencies of physicians as mentioned in the academic literature.</p><p><strong>Areas of agreement: </strong>Our findings emphasize the importance of physicians' critical human skills, alongside the growing demand for technical and digital competencies.</p><p><strong>Areas of controversy: </strong>Concrete guidance on physicians' required competencies in AI-assisted clinical settings remains ambiguous and requires further clarification and specification. Dissensus remains over whether physicians are adequately equipped to use and monitor AI in clinical settings in terms of competencies, skills and expertise, issues of ownership regarding normative guidance, and training of physicians' skills.</p><p><strong>Growing points: </strong>Our review offers a basis for subsequent further research and normative analysis on the responsible use of AI in clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Areas timely for developing research: </strong>Future research should clearly outline (i) how physicians must be(come) competent in working with AI in clinical settings, (ii) who or what should take ownership of embedding these competencies in a normative and regulatory framework, (iii) investigate conditions for achieving a reasonable amount of trust in AI, and (iv) assess the connection between trust and efficiency in patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":9280,"journal":{"name":"British medical bulletin","volume":"153 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11738171/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British medical bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldae025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) in clinical settings may offer significant benefits. A roadblock to the responsible implementation of medical AI is the remaining uncertainty regarding requirements for AI users at the bedside. An overview of the academic literature on human requirements for the adequate use of AI in clinical settings is therefore of significant value.

Sources of data: A systematic review of the potential implications of medical AI for the required competencies of physicians as mentioned in the academic literature.

Areas of agreement: Our findings emphasize the importance of physicians' critical human skills, alongside the growing demand for technical and digital competencies.

Areas of controversy: Concrete guidance on physicians' required competencies in AI-assisted clinical settings remains ambiguous and requires further clarification and specification. Dissensus remains over whether physicians are adequately equipped to use and monitor AI in clinical settings in terms of competencies, skills and expertise, issues of ownership regarding normative guidance, and training of physicians' skills.

Growing points: Our review offers a basis for subsequent further research and normative analysis on the responsible use of AI in clinical settings.

Areas timely for developing research: Future research should clearly outline (i) how physicians must be(come) competent in working with AI in clinical settings, (ii) who or what should take ownership of embedding these competencies in a normative and regulatory framework, (iii) investigate conditions for achieving a reasonable amount of trust in AI, and (iv) assess the connection between trust and efficiency in patient care.

医生在人工智能辅助临床环境中所需的能力:系统回顾。
背景:在临床环境中利用人工智能(AI)可能会带来显著的好处。负责任地实施医疗人工智能的一个障碍是,床边对人工智能用户的需求仍然存在不确定性。因此,对临床环境中充分使用人工智能的人类需求的学术文献进行概述具有重要价值。数据来源:对学术文献中提到的医疗人工智能对医生所需能力的潜在影响进行系统回顾。共识领域:我们的研究结果强调了医生的关键人际技能的重要性,以及对技术和数字能力日益增长的需求。争议领域:关于医生在人工智能辅助临床环境中所需能力的具体指导仍然不明确,需要进一步澄清和规范。在能力、技能和专业知识方面,医生是否有足够的能力在临床环境中使用和监测人工智能,关于规范指导的所有权问题,以及医生技能培训,仍然存在分歧。成长要点:我们的综述为后续进一步研究和规范分析在临床环境中负责任地使用人工智能提供了基础。及时开展研究的领域:未来的研究应清楚地概述(i)医生如何在临床环境中有能力与人工智能合作,(ii)谁或什么应该承担将这些能力嵌入规范和监管框架的责任,(iii)调查实现对人工智能的合理信任的条件,以及(iv)评估信任与患者护理效率之间的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British medical bulletin
British medical bulletin 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.50%
发文量
24
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: British Medical Bulletin is a multidisciplinary publication, which comprises high quality reviews aimed at generalist physicians, junior doctors, and medical students in both developed and developing countries. Its key aims are to provide interpretations of growing points in medicine by trusted experts in the field, and to assist practitioners in incorporating not just evidence but new conceptual ways of thinking into their practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信