A Decision Support System for Diagnostics and Treatment Planning in Traumatic Brain Injury

Toward an Interdisciplinary Approach to Constructing Care Delivery Pathways From Electronic Health Care Databases to Support Integrated Care in Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review of Quantification and Visualization Methods

BACKGROUND

Electronic health care databases are increasingly used for informing clinical decision-making. In long-term care, linking and accessing information on health care delivered by different providers could improve coordination and health outcomes. Several methods for quantifying and visualizing this information into data-driven care delivery pathways (CDPs) have been proposed. To be integrated effectively and sustainably into routine care, these methods need to meet a range of prerequisites covering 3 broad domains: clinical, technological, and behavioral. Although advances have been made, development to date lacks a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach. As the field expands, it would benefit from developing common standards of development and reporting that integrate clinical, technological, and behavioral aspects.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the content and development of long-term CDP quantification and visualization methods and to propose recommendations for future work.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. We searched peer-reviewed publications in English and reported the CDP methods by using the following data in the included studies: long-term care data and extracted data on clinical information and aims, technological development and characteristics, and user behaviors. The data are summarized in tables and presented narratively.

RESULTS

Of the 2921 records identified, 14 studies were included, of which 13 (93%) were descriptive reports and 1 (7%) was a validation study. Clinical aims focused primarily on treatment decision-making (n=6, 43%) and care coordination (n=7, 50%). Technological development followed a similar process from scope definition to tool validation, with various levels of detail in reporting. User behaviors (n=3, 21%) referred to accessing CDPs, planning care, adjusting treatment, or supporting adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of electronic health care databases for quantifying and visualizing CDPs in long-term care is an emerging field. Detailed and standardized reporting of clinical and technological aspects is needed. Early consideration of how CDPs would be used, validated, and implemented in clinical practice would likely facilitate further development and adoption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019140494; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=140494.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033573.

Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review

The application of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare domains has received much attention in recent years, yet significant questions remain about how these new tools integrate into frontline user workflow, and how their design will impact implementation. Lack of acceptance among clinicians is a major barrier to the translation of healthcare innovations into clinical practice. In this systematic review, we examine when and how clinicians are consulted about their needs and desires for clinical AI tools. Forty-five articles met criteria for inclusion, of which 24 were considered design studies. The design studies used a variety of methods to solicit and gather user feedback, with interviews, surveys, and user evaluations. Our findings show that tool designers consult clinicians at various but inconsistent points during the design process, and most typically at later stages in the design cycle (82%, 19/24 design studies). We also observed a smaller amount of studies adopting a human-centered approach and where clinician input was solicited throughout the design process (22%, 5/24). A third (15/45) of all studies reported on clinician trust in clinical AI algorithms and tools. The surveyed articles did not universally report validation against the “gold standard” of clinical expertise or provide detailed descriptions of the algorithms or computational methods used in their work. To realize the full potential of AI tools within healthcare settings, our review suggests there are opportunities to more thoroughly integrate frontline users’ needs and feedback in the design process.