Health care worker perceptions toward computerized clinical decision support tools for Clostridium difficile infection reduction: A qualitative study at 2 hospitals

Artificial intelligence in healthcare: a scoping review of perceived threats to patient rights and safety

BACKGROUND

The global health system remains determined to leverage on every workable opportunity, including artificial intelligence (AI) to provide care that is consistent with patients' needs. Unfortunately, while AI models generally return high accuracy within the trials in which they are trained, their ability to predict and recommend the best course of care for prospective patients is left to chance.

PURPOSE

This review maps evidence between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2023, on the perceived threats posed by the usage of AI tools in healthcare on patients' rights and safety.

METHODS

We deployed the guidelines of Tricco et al. to conduct a comprehensive search of current literature from Nature, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Dimensions AI, Web of Science, Ebsco Host, ProQuest, JStore, Semantic Scholar, Taylor & Francis, Emeralds, World Health Organisation, and Google Scholar. In all, 80 peer reviewed articles qualified and were included in this study.

RESULTS

We report that there is a real chance of unpredictable errors, inadequate policy and regulatory regime in the use of AI technologies in healthcare. Moreover, medical paternalism, increased healthcare cost and disparities in insurance coverage, data security and privacy concerns, and bias and discriminatory services are imminent in the use of AI tools in healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings have some critical implications for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3.8, 11.7, and 16. We recommend that national governments should lead in the roll-out of AI tools in their healthcare systems. Also, other key actors in the healthcare industry should contribute to developing policies on the use of AI in healthcare systems.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of computerized clinical decision support systems in hospitals: a NASSS framework-informed scoping review

BACKGROUND

Successful implementation and utilization of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) in hospitals is complex and challenging. Implementation science, and in particular the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework, may offer a systematic approach for identifying and addressing these challenges. This review aimed to identify, categorize, and describe barriers and facilitators to CDSS implementation in hospital settings and map them to the NASSS framework. Exploring the applicability of the NASSS framework to CDSS implementation was a secondary aim.

METHODS

Electronic database searches were conducted (21 July 2020; updated 5 April 2022) in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PyscInfo, and CINAHL. Original research studies reporting on measured or perceived barriers and/or facilitators to implementation and adoption of CDSS in hospital settings, or attitudes of healthcare professionals towards CDSS were included. Articles with a primary focus on CDSS development were excluded. No language or date restrictions were applied. We used qualitative content analysis to identify determinants and organize them into higher-order themes, which were then reflexively mapped to the NASSS framework.

RESULTS

Forty-four publications were included. These comprised a range of study designs, geographic locations, participants, technology types, CDSS functions, and clinical contexts of implementation. A total of 227 individual barriers and 130 individual facilitators were identified across the included studies. The most commonly reported influences on implementation were fit of CDSS with workflows (19 studies), the usefulness of the CDSS output in practice (17 studies), CDSS technical dependencies and design (16 studies), trust of users in the CDSS input data and evidence base (15 studies), and the contextual fit of the CDSS with the user's role or clinical setting (14 studies). Most determinants could be appropriately categorized into domains of the NASSS framework with barriers and facilitators in the "Technology," "Organization," and "Adopters" domains most frequently reported. No determinants were assigned to the "Embedding and Adaptation Over Time" domain.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified the most common determinants which could be targeted for modification to either remove barriers or facilitate the adoption and use of CDSS within hospitals. Greater adoption of implementation theory should be encouraged to support CDSS implementation.

An integrative review on the acceptance of artificial intelligence among healthcare professionals in hospitals

Artificial intelligence (AI) in the domain of healthcare is increasing in prominence. Acceptance is an indispensable prerequisite for the widespread implementation of AI. The aim of this integrative review is to explore barriers and facilitators influencing healthcare professionals' acceptance of AI in the hospital setting. Forty-two articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Pertinent elements to the study such as the type of AI, factors influencing acceptance, and the participants' profession were extracted from the included studies, and the studies were appraised for their quality. The data extraction and results were presented according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. The included studies revealed a variety of facilitating and hindering factors for AI acceptance in the hospital setting. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) were the AI form included in most studies (n = 21). Heterogeneous results with regard to the perceptions of the effects of AI on error occurrence, alert sensitivity and timely resources were reported. In contrast, fear of a loss of (professional) autonomy and difficulties in integrating AI into clinical workflows were unanimously reported to be hindering factors. On the other hand, training for the use of AI facilitated acceptance. Heterogeneous results may be explained by differences in the application and functioning of the different AI systems as well as inter-professional and interdisciplinary disparities. To conclude, in order to facilitate acceptance of AI among healthcare professionals it is advisable to integrate end-users in the early stages of AI development as well as to offer needs-adjusted training for the use of AI in healthcare and providing adequate infrastructure.

Impact of Statewide Prevention and Reduction of Clostridioides difficile (SPARC), a Maryland public health-academic collaborative: an evaluation of a quality improvement intervention

To evaluate changes in Clostridioides difficile incidence rates for Maryland hospitals that participated in the Statewide Prevention and Reduction of C. difficile (SPARC) collaborative. Pre-post, difference-in-difference analysis of non-randomised intervention using four quarters of preintervention and six quarters of postintervention National Healthcare Safety Network data for SPARC hospitals (April 2017 to March 2020) and 10 quarters for control hospitals (October 2017 to March 2020). Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to assess changes over time. Process evaluation using hospital intervention implementation plans, assessments and interviews with staff at eight SPARC hospitals. Maryland, USA. All Maryland acute care hospitals; 12 intervention and 36 control hospitals. Participation in SPARC, a public health-academic collaborative made available to Maryland hospitals, with staggered enrolment between June 2018 and August 2019. Hospitals with higher C. difficile rates were recruited via email and phone. SPARC included assessments, feedback reports and ongoing technical assistance. Primary outcomes were C. difficile incidence rate measured as the quarterly number of C. difficile infections per 10 000 patient-days (outcome measure) and SPARC intervention hospitals' experiences participating in the collaborative (process measures). SPARC invited 13 hospitals to participate in the intervention, with 92% (n=12) participating. The 36 hospitals that did not participate served as control hospitals. SPARC hospitals were associated with 45% greater C. difficile reduction as compared with control hospitals (incidence rate ratio=0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.88, p=0.012). Key SPARC activities, including access to trusted external experts, technical assistance, multidisciplinary collaboration, an accountability structure, peer-to-peer learning opportunities and educational resources, were associated with hospitals reporting positive experiences with SPARC. SPARC intervention hospitals experienced 45% greater reduction in C. difficile rates than control hospitals. A public health-academic collaborative might help reduce C. difficile and other hospital-acquired infections in individual hospitals and at state or regional levels.

Impact of a C. difficile infection (CDI) reduction bundle and its components on CDI diagnosis and prevention

BACKGROUND

Published bundles to reduce Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI) frequently lack information on compliance with individual elements. We piloted a computerized clinical decision support-based intervention bundle and conducted detailed evaluation of several intervention-related measures.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental study of a bundled intervention was performed at 2 acute care community hospitals in Maryland. The bundle had five components: (1) timely placement in enteric precautions, (2) appropriate CDI testing, (3) reducing proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use, (4) reducing high-CDI risk antibiotic use, and (5) optimizing use of a sporicidal agent for environmental cleaning. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare measure differences. An interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate impact on hospital-onset (HO)-CDI.

RESULTS

Placement of CDI suspects in enteric precautions before test results did not change. Only hospital B decreased the frequency of CDI testing and reduced inappropriate testing related to laxative use. Both hospitals reduced the use of PPI and high-risk antibiotics. A 75% decrease in HO-CDI immediately postimplementation was observed for hospital B only.

CONCLUSION

A CDI reduction bundle showed variable impact on relevant measures. Hospital-specific differential uptake of bundle elements may explain differences in effectiveness, and emphasizes the importance of measuring processes and intermediate outcomes.

Clinical Decision Support Systems and Their Role in Antibiotic Stewardship: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to perform a systematic review over the past 5 years on the role and effectiveness of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) on antibiotic stewardship.

RECENT FINDINGS

CDDS interventions found a significant impact on multiple outcomes relevant to antibiotic stewardship. There are various types of CDSS implementations, both active and passive (provider initiated). Passive interventions were associated with more significant outcomes; however, both interventions appeared effective. In the reviewed literature, CDSSs were consistently associated with decreasing antibiotic consumption and narrowing the spectrum of antibiotic usage. Generally, guideline adherence was improved with CDSS, although this was not universal. The effect on other outcomes, such as mortality, Clostridiodes difficile infections, length of stay, and cost, inconsistently showed a significant difference. Overall, CDDS implementation has effectively decreased antibiotic consumption and improved guideline adherence across the various types of CDSS. Other positive outcomes were noted in certain settings, but were not universal. When creating a new intervention, it is important to identify the optimal structure and deployment of a CDSS for a specific setting.