TY - JOUR
T1 - Intensive Care Unit Physicians’ Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence–Based Clinical Decision Support Tools
T2 - Preimplementation Survey Study
AU - van der Meijden, Siri L.
AU - de Hond, Anne A. H.
AU - Thoral, Patrick J.
AU - Steyerberg, Ewout W.
AU - Kant, Ilse M. J.
AU - Cinà, Giovanni
AU - Arbous, M. Sesmu
N1 - Funding Information: The authors would like to thank Bas Becker, Maurits Dekker, and Aletta de Beer for their contribution to the development of the questionnaire. For this project, the Leiden University Medical Center and Pacmed authors received funding for their public-private partnership from Top Sector LSH. Funding Information: GC was an employee of Pacmed during this study. PJT received royalties from Pacmed for the Amsterdam University Medical Center during this study. SVDM is an employee of Healthplus.ai and discloses having received funding from The European Regional Development Fund. The publication of the results was not conditional on approval from Pacmed, Leiden University Medical Center, or Amsterdam University Medical Center. No other disclosures are reported. Publisher Copyright: © Siri L van der Meijden, Anne A H de Hond, Patrick J Thoral, Ewout W Steyerberg, Ilse M J Kant, Giovanni Cinà, M Sesmu Arbous.
PY - 2023/1/5
Y1 - 2023/1/5
N2 - Background: Artificial intelligence–based clinical decision support (AI-CDS) tools have great potential to benefit intensive care unit (ICU) patients and physicians. There is a gap between the development and implementation of these tools. Objective: We aimed to investigate physicians’ perspectives and their current decision-making behavior before implementing a discharge AI-CDS tool for predicting readmission and mortality risk after ICU discharge. Methods: We conducted a survey of physicians involved in decision-making on discharge of patients at two Dutch academic ICUs between July and November 2021. Questions were divided into four domains: (1) physicians’ current decision-making behavior with respect to discharging ICU patients, (2) perspectives on the use of AI-CDS tools in general, (3) willingness to incorporate a discharge AI-CDS tool into daily clinical practice, and (4) preferences for using a discharge AI-CDS tool in daily workflows. Results: Most of the 64 respondents (of 93 contacted, 69%) were familiar with AI (62/64, 97%) and had positive expectations of AI, with 55 of 64 (86%) believing that AI could support them in their work as a physician. The respondents disagreed on whether the decision to discharge a patient was complex (23/64, 36% agreed and 22/64, 34% disagreed); nonetheless, most (59/64, 92%) agreed that a discharge AI-CDS tool could be of value. Significant differences were observed between physicians from the 2 academic sites, which may be related to different levels of involvement in the development of the discharge AI-CDS tool. Conclusions: ICU physicians showed a favorable attitude toward the integration of AI-CDS tools into the ICU setting in general, and in particular toward a tool to predict a patient’s risk of readmission and mortality within 7 days after discharge. The findings of this questionnaire will be used to improve the implementation process and training of end users.
AB - Background: Artificial intelligence–based clinical decision support (AI-CDS) tools have great potential to benefit intensive care unit (ICU) patients and physicians. There is a gap between the development and implementation of these tools. Objective: We aimed to investigate physicians’ perspectives and their current decision-making behavior before implementing a discharge AI-CDS tool for predicting readmission and mortality risk after ICU discharge. Methods: We conducted a survey of physicians involved in decision-making on discharge of patients at two Dutch academic ICUs between July and November 2021. Questions were divided into four domains: (1) physicians’ current decision-making behavior with respect to discharging ICU patients, (2) perspectives on the use of AI-CDS tools in general, (3) willingness to incorporate a discharge AI-CDS tool into daily clinical practice, and (4) preferences for using a discharge AI-CDS tool in daily workflows. Results: Most of the 64 respondents (of 93 contacted, 69%) were familiar with AI (62/64, 97%) and had positive expectations of AI, with 55 of 64 (86%) believing that AI could support them in their work as a physician. The respondents disagreed on whether the decision to discharge a patient was complex (23/64, 36% agreed and 22/64, 34% disagreed); nonetheless, most (59/64, 92%) agreed that a discharge AI-CDS tool could be of value. Significant differences were observed between physicians from the 2 academic sites, which may be related to different levels of involvement in the development of the discharge AI-CDS tool. Conclusions: ICU physicians showed a favorable attitude toward the integration of AI-CDS tools into the ICU setting in general, and in particular toward a tool to predict a patient’s risk of readmission and mortality within 7 days after discharge. The findings of this questionnaire will be used to improve the implementation process and training of end users.
KW - AI
KW - acceptance
KW - adoption
KW - artificial intelligence
KW - attitude
KW - clinical decision support
KW - clinical support
KW - decision support
KW - decision-making
KW - digital health
KW - discharge
KW - eHealth
KW - hospital
KW - intensive care unit
KW - opinion
KW - perspective
KW - prediction
KW - risk
KW - survey
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85149834973&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36602843
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149834973&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/165891204/humanfactors_v10i1e39114_app1.docx
UR - https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/165891206/humanfactors_v10i1e39114_app2.docx
UR - https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/165891208/humanfactors_v10i1e39114_app3.docx
UR - https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/165891210/humanfactors_v10i1e39114_app4.docx
U2 - 10.2196/39114
DO - 10.2196/39114
M3 - Article
C2 - 36602843
SN - 2292-9495
VL - 10
JO - JMIR Human Factors
JF - JMIR Human Factors
M1 - e39114
ER -