Innovation in healthcare: leadership perceptions about the innovation characteristics of artificial intelligence-a qualitative interview study with healthcare leaders in Sweden

Use of Artificial Intelligence tools in supporting decision-making in hospital management

BACKGROUND

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in hospital management holds potential for enhancing decision-making processes. This study investigates the current state of decision-making in hospital management, explores the potential benefits of AI integration, and examines hospital managers' perceptions of AI as a decision-support tool.

METHODS

A descriptive and exploratory study was conducted using a qualitative approach. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 15 hospital managers from various departments and institutions. The interviews were transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed using thematic coding to identify key themes and patterns in the responses.

RESULTS

Hospital managers highlighted the current inefficiencies in decision-making processes, often characterized by poor communication, isolated decision-making, and limited data access. The use of traditional tools like spreadsheet applications and business intelligence systems remains prevalent, but there is a clear need for more advanced, integrated solutions. Managers expressed both optimism and skepticism about AI, acknowledging its potential to improve efficiency and decision-making while raising concerns about data privacy, ethical issues, and the loss of human empathy. The study identified key challenges, including the variability in technical skills, data fragmentation, and resistance to change. Managers emphasized the importance of robust data infrastructure and adequate training to ensure successful AI integration.

CONCLUSIONS

The study reveals a complex landscape where the potential benefits of AI in hospital management are balanced with significant challenges and concerns. Effective integration of AI requires addressing technical, ethical, and cultural issues, with a focus on maintaining human elements in decision-making. AI is seen as a powerful tool to support, not replace, human judgment in hospital management, promising improvements in efficiency, data accessibility, and analytical capacity. Preparing healthcare institutions with the necessary infrastructure and providing specialized training for managers are crucial for maximizing the benefits of AI while mitigating associated risks.

A comprehensive overview of barriers and strategies for AI implementation in healthcare: Mixed-method design

Implementation of artificial intelligence systems for healthcare is challenging. Understanding the barriers and implementation strategies can impact their adoption and allows for better anticipation and planning. This study's objective was to create a detailed inventory of barriers to and strategies for AI implementation in healthcare to support advancements in methods and implementation processes in healthcare. A sequential explanatory mixed method design was used. Firstly, scoping reviews and systematic literature reviews were identified using PubMed. Selected studies included empirical cases of AI implementation and use in clinical practice. As the reviews were deemed insufficient to fulfil the aim of the study, data collection shifted to the primary studies included in those reviews. The primary studies were screened by title and abstract, and thereafter read in full text. Then, data on barriers to and strategies for AI implementation were extracted from the included articles, thematically coded by inductive analysis, and summarized. Subsequently, a direct qualitative content analysis of 69 interviews with healthcare leaders and healthcare professionals confirmed and added results from the literature review. Thirty-eight empirical cases from the six identified scoping and literature reviews met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Barriers to and strategies for AI implementation were grouped under three phases of implementation (planning, implementing, and sustaining the use) and were categorized into eleven concepts; Leadership, Buy-in, Change management, Engagement, Workflow, Finance and human resources, Legal, Training, Data, Evaluation and monitoring, Maintenance. Ethics emerged as a twelfth concept through qualitative analysis of the interviews. This study illustrates the inherent challenges and useful strategies in implementing AI in healthcare practice. Future research should explore various aspects of leadership, collaboration and contracts among key stakeholders, legal strategies surrounding clinicians' liability, solutions to ethical dilemmas, infrastructure for efficient integration of AI in workflows, and define decision points in the implementation process.

Healthcare leaders' experiences of implementing artificial intelligence for medical history-taking and triage in Swedish primary care: an interview study

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds significant promise for enhancing the efficiency and safety of medical history-taking and triage within primary care. However, there remains a dearth of knowledge concerning the practical implementation of AI systems for these purposes, particularly in the context of healthcare leadership. This study explores the experiences of healthcare leaders regarding the barriers to implementing an AI application for automating medical history-taking and triage in Swedish primary care, as well as the actions they took to overcome these barriers. Furthermore, the study seeks to provide insights that can inform the development of AI implementation strategies for healthcare.

METHODS

We adopted an inductive qualitative approach, conducting semi-structured interviews with 13 healthcare leaders representing seven primary care units across three regions in Sweden. The collected data were subsequently analysed utilizing thematic analysis. Our study adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research to ensure transparent and comprehensive reporting.

RESULTS

The study identified implementation barriers encountered by healthcare leaders across three domains: (1) healthcare professionals, (2) organization, and (3) technology. The first domain involved professional scepticism and resistance, the second involved adapting traditional units for digital care, and the third inadequacies in AI application functionality and system integration. To navigate around these barriers, the leaders took steps to (1) address inexperience and fear and reduce professional scepticism, (2) align implementation with digital maturity and guide patients towards digital care, and (3) refine and improve the AI application and adapt to the current state of AI application development.

CONCLUSION

The study provides valuable empirical insights into the implementation of AI for automating medical history-taking and triage in primary care as experienced by healthcare leaders. It identifies the barriers to this implementation and how healthcare leaders aligned their actions to overcome them. While progress was evident in overcoming professional-related and organizational-related barriers, unresolved technical complexities highlight the importance of AI implementation strategies that consider how leaders handle AI implementation in situ based on practical wisdom and tacit understanding. This underscores the necessity of a holistic approach for the successful implementation of AI in healthcare.

Identifying the risk of exercises, recommended by an artificial intelligence for patients with musculoskeletal disorders

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) impact people globally, cause occupational illness and reduce productivity. Exercise therapy is the gold standard treatment for MSDs and can be provided by physiotherapists and/or also via mobile apps. Apart from the obvious differences between physiotherapists and mobile apps regarding communication, empathy and physical touch, mobile apps potentially offer less personalized exercises. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) may overcome this issue by processing different pain parameters, comorbidities and patient-specific lifestyle factors and thereby enabling individually adapted exercise therapy. The aim of this study is to investigate the risks of AI-recommended strength, mobility and release exercises for people with MSDs, using physiotherapist risk assessment and retrospective consideration of patient feedback on risk and non-risk exercises. 80 patients with various MSDs received exercise recommendations from the AI-system. Physiotherapists rated exercises as risk or non-risk, based on patient information, e.g. pain intensity (NRS), pain quality, pain location, work type. The analysis of physiotherapists' agreement was based on the frequencies of mentioned risk, the percentage distribution and the Fleiss- or Cohens-Kappa. After completion of the exercises, the patients provided feedback for each exercise on an 11-point Likert scale., e.g. the feedback question for release exercises was "How did the stretch feel to you?" with the answer options ranging from "painful (0 points)" to "not noticeable (10 points)". The statistical analysis was carried out separately for the three types of exercises. For this, an independent t-test was performed. 20 physiotherapists assessed 80 patient examples, receiving a total of 944 exercises. In a three-way agreement of the physiotherapists, 0.08% of the exercises were judged as having a potential risk of increasing patients' pain. The evaluation showed 90.5% agreement, that exercises had no risk. Exercises that were considered by physiotherapists to be potentially risky for patients also received lower feedback ratings from patients. For the 'release' exercise type, risk exercises received lower feedback, indicating that the patient felt more pain (risk: 4.65 (1.88), non-risk: 5.56 (1.88)). The study shows that AI can recommend almost risk-free exercises for patients with MSDs, which is an effective way to create individualized exercise plans without putting patients at risk for higher pain intensity or discomfort. In addition, the study shows significant agreement between physiotherapists in the risk assessment of AI-recommended exercises and highlights the importance of considering individual patient perspectives for treatment planning. The extent to which other aspects of face-to-face physiotherapy, such as communication and education, provide additional benefits beyond the individualization of exercises compared to AI and app-based exercises should be further investigated.Trial registration: 30.12.2021 via OSF Registries, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YCNJQ .

Experiences of using artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative study of UK clinician and key stakeholder perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly developing field in healthcare, with tools being developed across various specialties to support healthcare professionals and reduce workloads. It is important to understand the experiences of professionals working in healthcare to ensure that future AI tools are acceptable and effectively implemented. The aim of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences and perceptions of UK healthcare workers and other key stakeholders about the use of AI in the National Health Service (NHS).

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted remotely via MS Teams. Thematic analysis was carried out.

SETTING

NHS and UK higher education institutes.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirteen participants were recruited, including clinical and non-clinical participants working for the NHS and researchers working to develop AI tools for healthcare settings.

RESULTS

Four core themes were identified: positive perceptions of AI; potential barriers to using AI in healthcare; concerns regarding AI use and steps needed to ensure the acceptability of future AI tools. Overall, we found that those working in healthcare were generally open to the use of AI and expected it to have many benefits for patients and facilitate access to care. However, concerns were raised regarding the security of patient data, the potential for misdiagnosis and that AI could increase the burden on already strained healthcare staff.

CONCLUSION

This study found that healthcare staff are willing to engage with AI research and incorporate AI tools into care pathways. Going forward, the NHS and AI developers will need to collaborate closely to ensure that future tools are suitable for their intended use and do not negatively impact workloads or patient trust. Future AI studies should continue to incorporate the views of key stakeholders to improve tool acceptability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05028179; ISRCTN15113915; IRAS ref: 293515.