AI-Generated Draft Replies Integrated Into Health Records and Physicians' Electronic Communication.

Importance: Timely tests are warranted to assess the association between generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) use and physicians' work efforts. Objective: To investigate the association between GenAI-drafted replies for patient messages and physician time spent on answering messages and the length of replies. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized waiting list quality improvement (QI) study from June to August 2023 in an academic health system. Primary care physicians were randomized to an immediate activation group and a delayed activation group. Data were analyzed from August to November 2023. Exposure: Access to GenAI-drafted replies for patient messages. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time spent (1) reading messages, (2) replying to messages, (3) length of replies, and (4) physician likelihood to recommend GenAI drafts. The a priori hypothesis was that GenAI drafts would be associated with less physician time spent reading and replying to messages. A mixed-effects model was used. Results: Fifty-two physicians participated in this QI study, with 25 randomized to the immediate activation group and 27 randomized to the delayed activation group. A contemporary control group included 70 physicians. There were 18 female participants (72.0%) in the immediate group and 17 female participants (63.0%) in the delayed group; the median age range was 35-44 years in the immediate group and 45-54 years in the delayed group. The median (IQR) time spent reading messages in the immediate group was 26 (11-69) seconds at baseline, 31 (15-70) seconds 3 weeks after entry to the intervention, and 31 (14-70) seconds 6 weeks after entry. The delayed group's median (IQR) read time was 25 (10-67) seconds at baseline, 29 (11-77) seconds during the 3-week waiting period, and 32 (15-72) seconds 3 weeks after entry to the intervention. The contemporary control group's median (IQR) read times were 21 (9-54), 22 (9-63), and 23 (9-60) seconds in corresponding periods. The estimated association of GenAI was a 21.8% increase in read time (95% CI, 5.2% to 41.0%; P = .008), a -5.9% change in reply time (95% CI, -16.6% to 6.2%; P = .33), and a 17.9% increase in reply length (95% CI, 10.1% to 26.2%; P < .001). Participants recognized GenAI's value and suggested areas for improvement. Conclusions and Relevance: In this QI study, GenAI-drafted replies were associated with significantly increased read time, no change in reply time, significantly increased reply length, and some perceived benefits. Rigorous empirical tests are necessary to further examine GenAI's performance. Future studies should examine patient experience and compare multiple GenAIs, including those with medical training.

Navigating the doctor-patient-AI relationship - a mixed-methods study of physician attitudes toward artificial intelligence in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly advancing field that is beginning to enter the practice of medicine. Primary care is a cornerstone of medicine and deals with challenges such as physician shortage and burnout which impact patient care. AI and its application via digital health is increasingly presented as a possible solution. However, there is a scarcity of research focusing on primary care physician (PCP) attitudes toward AI. This study examines PCP views on AI in primary care. We explore its potential impact on topics pertinent to primary care such as the doctor-patient relationship and clinical workflow. By doing so, we aim to inform primary care stakeholders to encourage successful, equitable uptake of future AI tools. Our study is the first to our knowledge to explore PCP attitudes using specific primary care AI use cases rather than discussing AI in medicine in general terms. METHODS: From June to August 2023, we conducted a survey among 47 primary care physicians affiliated with a large academic health system in Southern California. The survey quantified attitudes toward AI in general as well as concerning two specific AI use cases. Additionally, we conducted interviews with 15 survey respondents. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that PCPs have largely positive views of AI. However, attitudes often hinged on the context of adoption. While some concerns reported by PCPs regarding AI in primary care focused on technology (accuracy, safety, bias), many focused on people-and-process factors (workflow, equity, reimbursement, doctor-patient relationship). CONCLUSION: Our study offers nuanced insights into PCP attitudes towards AI in primary care and highlights the need for primary care stakeholder alignment on key issues raised by PCPs. AI initiatives that fail to address both the technological and people-and-process concerns raised by PCPs may struggle to make an impact.