Barriers to Implementing an Artificial Intelligence Model for Unplanned Readmissions.

ACI open Pub Date : 2020-07-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0040-1716748
Sally L Baxter, Jeremy S Bass, Amy M Sitapati
{"title":"Barriers to Implementing an Artificial Intelligence Model for Unplanned Readmissions.","authors":"Sally L Baxter,&nbsp;Jeremy S Bass,&nbsp;Amy M Sitapati","doi":"10.1055/s-0040-1716748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic health record (EHR) vendors now offer \"off-the-shelf\" artificial intelligence (AI) models to client organizations. Our health system faced difficulties in promoting end-user utilization of a new AI model for predicting readmissions embedded in the EHR.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim is to conduct a case study centered on identifying barriers to uptake/utilization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study was conducted using interviews with stakeholders. The interviews were used to identify relevant stakeholders, understand current workflows, identify implementation barriers, and formulate future strategies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We discovered substantial variation in existing workflows around readmissions. Some stakeholders did not perform any formal readmissions risk assessment. Others accustomed to using existing risk scores such as LACE+ had concerns about transitioning to a new model. Some stakeholders had existing workflows in place that could accommodate the new model, but they were not previously aware that the new model was in production. Concerns expressed by end-users included: whether the model's predictors were relevant to their work, need for adoption of additional workflow processes, need for training and change management, and potential for unintended consequences (e.g., increased health care resource utilization due to potentially over-referring discharged patients to home health services).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI models for risk stratification, even if \"off-the-shelf\" by design, are unlikely to be \"plug-and-play\" in health care settings. Seeking out key stakeholders and defining clear use cases early in the implementation process can better facilitate utilization of these models.</p>","PeriodicalId":72041,"journal":{"name":"ACI open","volume":" ","pages":"e108-e113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0040-1716748","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACI open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716748","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background: Electronic health record (EHR) vendors now offer "off-the-shelf" artificial intelligence (AI) models to client organizations. Our health system faced difficulties in promoting end-user utilization of a new AI model for predicting readmissions embedded in the EHR.

Objectives: The aim is to conduct a case study centered on identifying barriers to uptake/utilization.

Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using interviews with stakeholders. The interviews were used to identify relevant stakeholders, understand current workflows, identify implementation barriers, and formulate future strategies.

Results: We discovered substantial variation in existing workflows around readmissions. Some stakeholders did not perform any formal readmissions risk assessment. Others accustomed to using existing risk scores such as LACE+ had concerns about transitioning to a new model. Some stakeholders had existing workflows in place that could accommodate the new model, but they were not previously aware that the new model was in production. Concerns expressed by end-users included: whether the model's predictors were relevant to their work, need for adoption of additional workflow processes, need for training and change management, and potential for unintended consequences (e.g., increased health care resource utilization due to potentially over-referring discharged patients to home health services).

Conclusion: AI models for risk stratification, even if "off-the-shelf" by design, are unlikely to be "plug-and-play" in health care settings. Seeking out key stakeholders and defining clear use cases early in the implementation process can better facilitate utilization of these models.

实施非计划再入院人工智能模型的障碍。
背景:电子健康记录(EHR)供应商现在向客户组织提供“现成的”人工智能(AI)模型。我们的卫生系统在促进最终用户利用电子病历中嵌入的用于预测再入院的新人工智能模型方面面临困难。目的:目的是开展一个以确定吸收/利用障碍为中心的案例研究。方法:采用对利益相关者的访谈进行定性研究。访谈被用来确定相关的利益相关者,了解当前的工作流程,确定实施障碍,并制定未来的战略。结果:我们发现围绕再入院的现有工作流程存在实质性变化。一些利益相关者没有进行任何正式的再入院风险评估。其他习惯于使用现有风险评分(如LACE+)的人担心过渡到新模型。一些涉众拥有可以适应新模型的现有工作流,但是他们以前并不知道新模型已经投入生产。最终用户表达的关切包括:模型的预测因子是否与他们的工作相关,是否需要采用额外的工作流程,是否需要培训和变更管理,以及是否有可能产生意想不到的后果(例如,由于可能过度转诊出院患者到家庭保健服务而增加了保健资源利用率)。结论:用于风险分层的人工智能模型,即使设计上是“现成的”,也不太可能在卫生保健环境中“即插即用”。在实现过程的早期寻找关键涉众并定义清晰的用例可以更好地促进这些模型的利用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书