Improving AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems and Their Integration Into Care From the Perspective of Experts: Interview Study Among Different Stakeholders.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Godwin Denk Giebel, Pascal Raszke, Hartmuth Nowak, Lars Palmowski, Michael Adamzik, Philipp Heinz, Marianne Tokic, Nina Timmesfeld, Frank Martin Brunkhorst, Jürgen Wasem, Nikola Blase
{"title":"Improving AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems and Their Integration Into Care From the Perspective of Experts: Interview Study Among Different Stakeholders.","authors":"Godwin Denk Giebel, Pascal Raszke, Hartmuth Nowak, Lars Palmowski, Michael Adamzik, Philipp Heinz, Marianne Tokic, Nina Timmesfeld, Frank Martin Brunkhorst, Jürgen Wasem, Nikola Blase","doi":"10.2196/69688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems are receiving increasing attention in the health care sector. While the use of AI is well advanced in some medical applications, such as image recognition, it is still in its infancy in others, such as clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Examples of AI-based CDSS can be found in the context of sepsis prediction or antibiotic prescription. Scientific literature indicates that such systems can support physicians in their daily work and lead to improved patient outcomes. Nevertheless, there are various problems and barriers in this context that should be considered.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to identify opportunities to optimize AI-based CDSS and their integration into care from the perspective of experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semistructured web-based expert interviews were conducted. Experts representing the perspectives of patients; physicians; caregivers; developers; health insurance representatives; researchers (especially in law and IT); and experts in regulation, market admission and quality management or assurance, and ethics were included. The conversations were recorded and transcribed. Subsequently, a qualitative content analysis was performed. The different approaches to improvement were categorized into groups (\"technology,\" \"data,\" \"users,\" \"studies,\" \"law,\" and \"general\"). These also served as deductive codes. Inductive codes were determined within an internal project workshop.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 13 individual and 2 double interviews were conducted with 17 experts. A total of 227 expert statements were included in the analysis. Suggestions were heterogeneous and concerned improvements: (1) in the systems themselves (eg, implementing comprehensive system training involving [future] users; using a comprehensive and high-quality database; considering usability, transparency, and customizability; preventing automation bias through control mechanisms or intelligent design; conducting studies to demonstrate the benefit of the system), (2) on the user side (eg, training [future] physicians could contribute to a more positive attitude and to greater awareness and questioning decision supports suggested by the system and ensuring that the use of the system does not lead to additional work), and (3) in the environment in which the systems are used (eg, increasing the digitalization of the health care system, especially in hospitals; providing transparent public communication about the benefits and risks of AI; providing research funding; clarifying open legal issues, eg, those related to liability; and standardizing and consolidating various approval processes).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study offers several possible strategies for improving AI-based CDSS and their integration into health care. These were found in the areas of \"technology,\" \"data,\" \"users,\" \"studies,\" \"law,\" and \"general.\" Systems, users, and the environment should be taken into account to ensure that the systems are used safely, effectively, and sustainably. Further studies should investigate both the effectiveness of strategies to improve AI-based CDSS and their integration into health care and the accuracy of their match to specific problems.</p><p><strong>International registered report identifier (irrid): </strong>RR2-10.2196/62704.</p>","PeriodicalId":56334,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Informatics","volume":"13 ","pages":"e69688"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/69688","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems are receiving increasing attention in the health care sector. While the use of AI is well advanced in some medical applications, such as image recognition, it is still in its infancy in others, such as clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Examples of AI-based CDSS can be found in the context of sepsis prediction or antibiotic prescription. Scientific literature indicates that such systems can support physicians in their daily work and lead to improved patient outcomes. Nevertheless, there are various problems and barriers in this context that should be considered.

Objective: This study aimed to identify opportunities to optimize AI-based CDSS and their integration into care from the perspective of experts.

Methods: Semistructured web-based expert interviews were conducted. Experts representing the perspectives of patients; physicians; caregivers; developers; health insurance representatives; researchers (especially in law and IT); and experts in regulation, market admission and quality management or assurance, and ethics were included. The conversations were recorded and transcribed. Subsequently, a qualitative content analysis was performed. The different approaches to improvement were categorized into groups ("technology," "data," "users," "studies," "law," and "general"). These also served as deductive codes. Inductive codes were determined within an internal project workshop.

Results: In total, 13 individual and 2 double interviews were conducted with 17 experts. A total of 227 expert statements were included in the analysis. Suggestions were heterogeneous and concerned improvements: (1) in the systems themselves (eg, implementing comprehensive system training involving [future] users; using a comprehensive and high-quality database; considering usability, transparency, and customizability; preventing automation bias through control mechanisms or intelligent design; conducting studies to demonstrate the benefit of the system), (2) on the user side (eg, training [future] physicians could contribute to a more positive attitude and to greater awareness and questioning decision supports suggested by the system and ensuring that the use of the system does not lead to additional work), and (3) in the environment in which the systems are used (eg, increasing the digitalization of the health care system, especially in hospitals; providing transparent public communication about the benefits and risks of AI; providing research funding; clarifying open legal issues, eg, those related to liability; and standardizing and consolidating various approval processes).

Conclusions: This study offers several possible strategies for improving AI-based CDSS and their integration into health care. These were found in the areas of "technology," "data," "users," "studies," "law," and "general." Systems, users, and the environment should be taken into account to ensure that the systems are used safely, effectively, and sustainably. Further studies should investigate both the effectiveness of strategies to improve AI-based CDSS and their integration into health care and the accuracy of their match to specific problems.

International registered report identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/62704.

专家视角下改进基于人工智能的临床决策支持系统及其与护理的整合:不同利益相关者的访谈研究
背景:基于人工智能(AI)的系统在医疗保健领域受到越来越多的关注。虽然人工智能在某些医疗应用(如图像识别)中的使用非常先进,但在其他应用(如临床决策支持系统(CDSS))中仍处于起步阶段。基于人工智能的CDSS的例子可以在脓毒症预测或抗生素处方的背景下找到。科学文献表明,这种系统可以支持医生的日常工作,并改善患者的治疗效果。然而,在这方面存在各种问题和障碍,应予考虑。目的:本研究旨在从专家的角度寻找优化基于人工智能的CDSS及其融入护理的机会。方法:采用基于网络的半结构化专家访谈法。代表患者观点的专家;医生;护理人员;开发人员;健康保险代表;研究人员(特别是在法律和信息技术方面);监管、市场准入、质量管理或保证、伦理方面的专家也被纳入其中。这些谈话被录音和转录。随后进行定性含量分析。不同的改进方法被分类为组(“技术”、“数据”、“用户”、“研究”、“法律”和“一般”)。这些也可以作为演绎代码。感应代码是在一个内部项目车间内确定的。结果:共对17位专家进行了13次单独访谈和2次双访谈。分析共包括227份专家陈述。建议是不同的,涉及改进:(1)系统本身(例如,实施涉及[未来]用户的全面系统培训;使用全面、高质量的数据库;考虑可用性、透明度和可定制性;通过控制机制或智能设计防止自动化偏差;(2)在用户方面(例如,培训[未来的]医生可以促进更积极的态度,提高认识和质疑系统建议的决策支持,并确保系统的使用不会导致额外的工作),以及(3)在使用系统的环境中(例如,增加医疗保健系统的数字化,特别是在医院中;就人工智能的利益和风险提供透明的公众沟通;提供研究经费;澄清未解决的法律问题,例如与责任有关的问题;规范和整合各种审批流程)。结论:本研究为改善基于人工智能的CDSS及其与医疗保健的整合提供了几种可能的策略。这些被发现在“技术”、“数据”、“用户”、“研究”、“法律”和“一般”领域。应考虑到系统、用户和环境,以确保系统安全、有效和可持续地使用。进一步的研究应该调查改善基于人工智能的CDSS策略的有效性及其与卫生保健的整合,以及它们与特定问题匹配的准确性。国际注册报告标识符(irrid): RR2-10.2196/62704。
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
JMIR Medical Informatics
JMIR Medical Informatics Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
173
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR Medical Informatics (JMI, ISSN 2291-9694) is a top-rated, tier A journal which focuses on clinical informatics, big data in health and health care, decision support for health professionals, electronic health records, ehealth infrastructures and implementation. It has a focus on applied, translational research, with a broad readership including clinicians, CIOs, engineers, industry and health informatics professionals. Published by JMIR Publications, publisher of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), the leading eHealth/mHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175), JMIR Med Inform has a slightly different scope (emphasizing more on applications for clinicians and health professionals rather than consumers/citizens, which is the focus of JMIR), publishes even faster, and also allows papers which are more technical or more formative than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信