How can artificial intelligence decrease cognitive and work burden for front line practitioners?

Artificial intelligence (AI) has tremendous potential to improve the cognitive and work burden of clinicians across a range of clinical activities, which could lead to reduced burnout and better clinical care. The recent explosion of generative AI nicely illustrates this potential. Developers and organizations deploying AI have a responsibility to ensure AI is designed and implemented with end-user input, has mechanisms to identify and potentially reduce bias, and that the impact on cognitive and work burden is measured, monitored, and improved. This article focuses specifically on the role AI can play in reducing cognitive and work burden, outlines the critical issues associated with the use of AI, and serves as a call to action for vendors and users to work together to develop functionality that addresses these challenges.

Anticholinergic action is rarely a good thing

The evidence for the risks associated with anticholinergic agents has grown considerably in the last two decades. Not only are they associated with causing peripheral side effects such as dry mouth, blurred vision and constipation, but they can also cause central effects such as cognitive impairment; and more recently, they have consistently been linked with an increased risk of dementia and death in older people. This paper reviews the evidence for the associations of anticholinergic agents and the risk of dementia and increased mortality in dementia.

The past, present and future of anticholinergic drugs

In current medical practice, it is difficult to find any reports claiming that drugs that are primarily anticholinergic or those that have significant anticholinergic effects have any therapeutic benefits. These drugs fell into disrepute within the mental health field from the mid-1960s onwards, and their supposed problems extended to elsewhere in medicine after that. There is considerable evidence that this disrepute stemmed more from marketing copy rather than from hard clinical trial data. Many apparent reviews appear to repeat prior claims rather than present substantial or new evidence. This article offers a perspective rather than a systematic review as there is little evidence other than claims to review. The aim is to challenge the conventional narrative that anticholinergic effects are uniquely hazardous by pointing to the uncertain basis for claims about the harms of anticholinergic drugs, antimuscarinic drugs in particular, ending with pointers to recent research that, if realized, might underpin important possible future benefits.