Towards successful implementation of artificial intelligence in healthcare practice: A research program (Preprint)

[Supporting medical and nursing activities with AI: recommendations for responsible design and use]

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) based on artificial intelligence (AI) are complex socio-technical innovations and are increasingly being used in medicine and nursing to improve the overall quality and efficiency of care, while also addressing limited financial and human resources. However, in addition to such intended clinical and organisational effects, far-reaching ethical, social and legal implications of AI-based CDSS on patient care and nursing are to be expected. To date, these normative-social implications have not been sufficiently investigated. The BMBF-funded project DESIREE (DEcision Support In Routine and Emergency HEalth Care: Ethical and Social Implications) has developed recommendations for the responsible design and use of clinical decision support systems. This article focuses primarily on ethical and social aspects of AI-based CDSS that could have a negative impact on patient health. Our recommendations are intended as additions to existing recommendations and are divided into the following action fields with relevance across all stakeholder groups: development, clinical use, information and consent, education and training, and (accompanying) research.

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.

Implementing AI in Hospitals to Achieve a Learning Health System: Systematic Review of Current Enablers and Barriers

BACKGROUND

Efforts are underway to capitalize on the computational power of the data collected in electronic medical records (EMRs) to achieve a learning health system (LHS). Artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has promised to improve clinical outcomes, and many researchers are developing AI algorithms on retrospective data sets. Integrating these algorithms with real-time EMR data is rare. There is a poor understanding of the current enablers and barriers to empower this shift from data set-based use to real-time implementation of AI in health systems. Exploring these factors holds promise for uncovering actionable insights toward the successful integration of AI into clinical workflows.

OBJECTIVE

The first objective was to conduct a systematic literature review to identify the evidence of enablers and barriers regarding the real-world implementation of AI in hospital settings. The second objective was to map the identified enablers and barriers to a 3-horizon framework to enable the successful digital health transformation of hospitals to achieve an LHS.

METHODS

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were adhered to. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore were searched for studies published between January 2010 and January 2022. Articles with case studies and guidelines on the implementation of AI analytics in hospital settings using EMR data were included. We excluded studies conducted in primary and community care settings. Quality assessment of the identified papers was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and ADAPTE frameworks. We coded evidence from the included studies that related to enablers of and barriers to AI implementation. The findings were mapped to the 3-horizon framework to provide a road map for hospitals to integrate AI analytics.

RESULTS

Of the 1247 studies screened, 26 (2.09%) met the inclusion criteria. In total, 65% (17/26) of the studies implemented AI analytics for enhancing the care of hospitalized patients, whereas the remaining 35% (9/26) provided implementation guidelines. Of the final 26 papers, the quality of 21 (81%) was assessed as poor. A total of 28 enablers was identified; 8 (29%) were new in this study. A total of 18 barriers was identified; 5 (28%) were newly found. Most of these newly identified factors were related to information and technology. Actionable recommendations for the implementation of AI toward achieving an LHS were provided by mapping the findings to a 3-horizon framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant issues exist in implementing AI in health care. Shifting from validating data sets to working with live data is challenging. This review incorporated the identified enablers and barriers into a 3-horizon framework, offering actionable recommendations for implementing AI analytics to achieve an LHS. The findings of this study can assist hospitals in steering their strategic planning toward successful adoption of AI.

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.

Managing risk and resilience in autonomous and intelligent systems: Exploring safety in the development, deployment, and use of artificial intelligence in healthcare

Autonomous and intelligent systems (AIS) are being developed and deployed across a wide range of sectors and encompass a variety of technologies designed to engage in different forms of independent reasoning and self-directed behavior. These technologies may bring considerable benefits to society but also pose a range of risk management challenges, particularly when deployed in safety-critical sectors where complex interactions between human, social, and technical processes underpin safety and resilience. Healthcare is one safety-critical sector at the forefront of efforts to develop and deploy intelligent technologies, such as through artificial intelligence (AI) systems intended to automate key aspects of healthcare tasks such as reading medical images to identify signs of pathology. This article develops a qualitative analysis of the sociotechnical sources of risk and resilience associated with the development, deployment, and use of AI in healthcare, drawing on 40 in-depth interviews with participants involved in the development, management, and regulation of AI. Qualitative template analysis is used to examine sociotechnical sources of risk and resilience, drawing on and elaborating Macrae's (2022, Risk Analysis, 42(9), 1999-2025) SOTEC framework that integrates structural, organizational, technological, epistemic, and cultural sources of risk in AIS. This analysis explores an array of sociotechnical sources of risk associated with the development, deployment, and use of AI in healthcare and identifies an array of sociotechnical patterns of resilience that may counter those risks. In doing so, the SOTEC framework is elaborated and translated to define key sources of both risk and resilience in AIS.

A Framework to Guide Implementation of AI in Health Care: Protocol for a Cocreation Research Project

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential in health care to transform patient care and administrative processes, yet health care has been slow to adopt AI due to many types of barriers. Implementation science has shown the importance of structured implementation processes to overcome implementation barriers. However, there is a lack of knowledge and tools to guide such processes when implementing AI-based applications in health care.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this protocol is to describe the development, testing, and evaluation of a framework, "Artificial Intelligence-Quality Implementation Framework" (AI-QIF), intended to guide decisions and activities related to the implementation of various AI-based applications in health care.

METHODS

The paper outlines the development of an AI implementation framework for broad use in health care based on the Quality Implementation Framework (QIF). QIF is a process model developed in implementation science. The model guides the user to consider implementation-related issues in a step-by-step design and plan and perform activities that support implementation. This framework was chosen for its adaptability, usability, broad scope, and detailed guidance concerning important activities and considerations for successful implementation. The development will proceed in 5 phases with primarily qualitative methods being used. The process starts with phase I, in which an AI-adapted version of QIF is created (AI-QIF). Phase II will produce a digital mockup of the AI-QIF. Phase III will involve the development of a prototype of the AI-QIF with an intuitive user interface. Phase IV is dedicated to usability testing of the prototype in health care environments. Phase V will focus on evaluating the usability and effectiveness of the AI-QIF. Cocreation is a guiding principle for the project and is an important aspect in 4 of the 5 development phases. The cocreation process will enable the use of both on research-based and practice-based knowledge.

RESULTS

The project is being conducted within the frame of a larger research program, with the overall objective of developing theoretically and empirically informed frameworks to support AI implementation in routine health care. The program was launched in 2021 and has carried out numerous research activities. The development of AI-QIF as a tool to guide the implementation of AI-based applications in health care will draw on knowledge and experience acquired from these activities. The framework is being developed over 2 years, from January 2023 to December 2024. It is under continuous development and refinement.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of the AI implementation framework, AI-QIF, described in this study protocol aims to facilitate the implementation of AI-based applications in health care based on the premise that implementation processes benefit from being well-prepared and structured. The framework will be coproduced to enhance its relevance, validity, usefulness, and potential value for application in practice.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/50216.

Implementing AI in healthcare-the relevance of trust: a scoping review

Background

The process of translation of AI and its potential benefits into practice in healthcare services has been slow in spite of its rapid development. Trust in AI in relation to implementation processes is an important aspect. Without a clear understanding, the development of effective implementation strategies will not be possible, nor will AI advance despite the significant investments and possibilities.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the scientific literature regarding how trust in AI in relation to implementation in healthcare is conceptualized and what influences trust in AI in relation to implementation in healthcare.

Methods

This scoping review included five scientific databases. These were searched to identify publications related to the study aims. Articles were included if they were published in English, after 2012, and peer-reviewed. Two independent reviewers conducted an abstract and full-text review, as well as carrying out a thematic analysis with an inductive approach to address the study aims. The review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

Results

A total of eight studies were included in the final review. We found that trust was conceptualized in different ways. Most empirical studies had an individual perspective where trust was directed toward the technology's capability. Two studies focused on trust as relational between people in the context of the AI application rather than as having trust in the technology itself. Trust was also understood by its determinants and as having a mediating role, positioned between characteristics and AI use. The thematic analysis yielded three themes: individual characteristics, AI characteristics and contextual characteristics, which influence trust in AI in relation to implementation in healthcare.

Conclusions

Findings showed that the conceptualization of trust in AI differed between the studies, as well as which determinants they accounted for as influencing trust. Few studies looked beyond individual characteristics and AI characteristics. Future empirical research addressing trust in AI in relation to implementation in healthcare should have a more holistic view of the concept to be able to manage the many challenges, uncertainties, and perceived risks.

Barriers and Enablers for Implementation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision Support Tool to Reduce the Risk of Readmission of Patients With Heart Failure: Stakeholder Interviews

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications in health care are expected to provide value for health care organizations, professionals, and patients. However, the implementation of such systems should be carefully planned and organized in order to ensure quality, safety, and acceptance. The gathered view of different stakeholders is a great source of information to understand the barriers and enablers for implementation in a specific context.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand the context and stakeholder perspectives related to the future implementation of a clinical decision support system for predicting readmissions of patients with heart failure. The study was part of a larger project involving model development, interface design, and implementation planning of the system.

METHODS

Interviews were held with 12 stakeholders from the regional and municipal health care organizations to gather their views on the potential effects implementation of such a decision support system could have as well as barriers and enablers for implementation. Data were analyzed based on the categories defined in the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability (NASSS) framework.

RESULTS

Stakeholders had in general a positive attitude and curiosity toward AI-based decision support systems, and mentioned several barriers and enablers based on the experiences of previous implementations of information technology systems. Central aspects to consider for the proposed clinical decision support system were design aspects, access to information throughout the care process, and integration into the clinical workflow. The implementation of such a system could lead to a number of effects related to both clinical outcomes as well as resource allocation, which are all important to address in the planning of implementation. Stakeholders saw, however, value in several aspects of implementing such system, emphasizing the increased quality of life for those patients who can avoid being hospitalized.

CONCLUSIONS

Several ideas were put forward on how the proposed AI system would potentially affect and provide value for patients, professionals, and the organization, and implementation aspects were important parts of that. A successful system can help clinicians to prioritize the need for different types of treatments but also be used for planning purposes within the hospital. However, the system needs not only technological and clinical precision but also a carefully planned implementation process. Such a process should take into consideration the aspects related to all the categories in the NASSS framework. This study further highlighted the importance to study stakeholder needs early in the process of development, design, and implementation of decision support systems, as the data revealed new information on the potential use of the system and the placement of the application in the care process.

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

BACKGROUND

Despite the extensive hopes and expectations for value creation resulting from the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare, research has predominantly been technology-centric rather than focused on the many changes that are required in clinical practice for the technology to be successfully implemented. The importance of leaders in the successful implementation of innovations in healthcare is well recognised, yet their perspectives on the specific innovation characteristics of AI are still unknown. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the perceptions of leaders in healthcare concerning the innovation characteristics of AI intended to be implemented into their organisation.

METHODS

The study had a deductive qualitative design, using constructs from the innovation domain in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were conducted with 26 leaders in healthcare.

RESULTS

Participants perceived that AI could provide relative advantages when it came to care management, supporting clinical decisions, and the early detection of disease and risk of disease. The development of AI in the organisation itself was perceived as the main current innovation source. The evidence base behind AI technology was questioned, in relation to its transparency, potential quality improvement, and safety risks. Although the participants acknowledged AI to be superior to human action in terms of effectiveness and precision in some situations, they also expressed uncertainty about the adaptability and trialability of AI. Complexities such as the characteristics of the technology, the lack of conceptual consensus about AI, and the need for a variety of implementation strategies to accomplish transformative change in practice were identified, as were uncertainties about the costs involved in AI implementation.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare leaders not only saw potential in the technology and its use in practice, but also felt that AI's opacity limits its evidence strength and that complexities in relation to AI itself and its implementation influence its current use in healthcare practice. More research is needed based on actual experiences using AI applications in real-world situations and their impact on clinical practice. New theories, models, and frameworks may need to be developed to meet challenges related to the implementation of AI in healthcare.

Clinician Perspectives on Barriers and Enablers to Implementing an Inpatient Oncology Early Warning System: A Mixed-Methods Study

PURPOSE

To elicit end-user and stakeholder perceptions regarding design and implementation of an inpatient clinical deterioration early warning system (EWS) for oncology patients to better fit routine clinical practices and enhance clinical impact.

METHODS

In an explanatory-sequential mixed-methods study, we evaluated a stakeholder-informed oncology early warning system (OncEWS) using surveys and semistructured interviews. Stakeholders were physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), and nurses. For qualitative data, we used grounded theory and thematic content analysis via the constant comparative method to identify determinants of OncEWS implementation.

RESULTS

Survey respondents generally agreed that an oncology-focused EWS could add value beyond clinical judgment, with nurses endorsing this notion significantly more strongly than other clinicians (nurse: median 5 on a 6-point scale [6 = strongly agree], interquartile range 4-5; doctors/advanced practice providers: 4 [4-5]; P = .005). However, some respondents would not trust an EWS to identify risk accurately (n = 36 [42%] somewhat or very concerned), while others were concerned that institutional culture would not embrace such an EWS (n = 17 [28%]).Interviews highlighted important aspects of the EWS and the local context that might facilitate implementation, including (1) a model tailored to the subtleties of oncology patients, (2) transparent model information, and (3) nursing-centric workflows. Interviewees raised the importance of sepsis as a common and high-risk deterioration syndrome.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholders prioritized maximizing the degree to which the OncEWS is understandable, informative, actionable, and workflow-complementary, and perceived these factors to be key for translation into clinical benefit.

Artificial intelligence based prediction models for individuals at risk of multiple diabetic complications: A systematic review of the literature

AIM

The aim of this review is to examine the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in predicting multimorbid diabetes-related complications.

BACKGROUND

In diabetic patients, several complications are often present, which have a significant impact on the quality of life; therefore, it is crucial to predict the level of risk for diabetes and its complications.

EVALUATION

International databases PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE and Scopus were searched using the terms artificial intelligence, diabetes mellitus and prediction of complications to identify studies on the effectiveness of artificial intelligence for predicting multimorbid diabetes-related complications. The results were organized by outcomes to allow more efficient comparison.

KEY ISSUES

Based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 11 articles were included in the final analysis. The most frequently predicted complications were diabetic neuropathy (n = 7). Authors included from two to a maximum of 14 complications. The most commonly used prediction models were penalized regression, random forest and Naïve Bayes model neural network.

CONCLUSION

The use of artificial intelligence can predict the risks of diabetes complications with greater precision based on available multidimensional datasets and provides an important tool for nurses working in preventive health care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Using artificial intelligence contributes to a better quality of care, better autonomy of patients in diabetes management and reduction of complications, costs of medical care and mortality.

Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care Practice: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI) is often heralded as a potential disruptor that will transform the practice of medicine. The amount of data collected and available in health care, coupled with advances in computational power, has contributed to advances in AI and an exponential growth of publications. However, the development of AI applications does not guarantee their adoption into routine practice. There is a risk that despite the resources invested, benefits for patients, staff, and society will not be realized if AI implementation is not better understood.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore how the implementation of AI in health care practice has been described and researched in the literature by answering 3 questions: What are the characteristics of research on implementation of AI in practice? What types and applications of AI systems are described? What characteristics of the implementation process for AI systems are discernible?

Methods

A scoping review was conducted of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases to identify empirical studies of AI implementation in health care since 2011, in addition to snowball sampling of selected reference lists. Using Rayyan software, we screened titles and abstracts and selected full-text articles. Data from the included articles were charted and summarized.

Results

Of the 9218 records retrieved, 45 (0.49%) articles were included. The articles cover diverse clinical settings and disciplines; most (32/45, 71%) were published recently, were from high-income countries (33/45, 73%), and were intended for care providers (25/45, 56%). AI systems are predominantly intended for clinical care, particularly clinical care pertaining to patient-provider encounters. More than half (24/45, 53%) possess no action autonomy but rather support human decision-making. The focus of most research was on establishing the effectiveness of interventions (16/45, 35%) or related to technical and computational aspects of AI systems (11/45, 24%). Focus on the specifics of implementation processes does not yet seem to be a priority in research, and the use of frameworks to guide implementation is rare.

Conclusions

Our current empirical knowledge derives from implementations of AI systems with low action autonomy and approaches common to implementations of other types of information systems. To develop a specific and empirically based implementation framework, further research is needed on the more disruptive types of AI systems being implemented in routine care and on aspects unique to AI implementation in health care, such as building trust, addressing transparency issues, developing explainable and interpretable solutions, and addressing ethical concerns around privacy and data protection.