Improving Quality of ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) Coding Using AI: Protocol for a Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted clinical coding (CAC) tools are designed to help clinical coders assign standardized codes, such as the ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision), to clinical texts, such as discharge summaries. Maintaining the integrity of these standardized codes is important both for the functioning of health systems and for ensuring data used for secondary purposes are of high quality. Clinical coding is an error-prone cumbersome task, and the complexity of modern classification systems such as the ICD-11 (International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision) presents significant barriers to implementation. To date, there have only been a few user studies; therefore, our understanding is still limited regarding the role CAC systems can play in reducing the burden of coding and improving the overall quality of coding. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the user study is to generate both qualitative and quantitative data for measuring the usefulness of a CAC system, Easy-ICD, that was developed for recommending ICD-10 codes. Specifically, our goal is to assess whether our tool can reduce the burden on clinical coders and also improve coding quality. METHODS: The user study is based on a crossover randomized controlled trial study design, where we measure the performance of clinical coders when they use our CAC tool versus when they do not. Performance is measured by the time it takes them to assign codes to both simple and complex clinical texts as well as the coding quality, that is, the accuracy of code assignment. RESULTS: We expect the study to provide us with a measurement of the effectiveness of the CAC system compared to manual coding processes, both in terms of time use and coding quality. Positive outcomes from this study will imply that CAC tools hold the potential to reduce the burden on health care staff and will have major implications for the adoption of artificial intelligence-based CAC innovations to improve coding practice. Expected results to be published summer 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The planned user study promises a greater understanding of the impact CAC systems might have on clinical coding in real-life settings, especially with regard to coding time and quality. Further, the study may add new insights on how to meaningfully exploit current clinical text mining capabilities, with a view to reducing the burden on clinical coders, thus lowering the barriers and paving a more sustainable path to the adoption of modern coding systems, such as the new ICD-11. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT06286865; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06286865. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54593.

A multinational study on artificial intelligence adoption: Clinical implementers' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial progress in AI research for healthcare, translating research achievements to AI systems in clinical settings is challenging and, in many cases, unsatisfactory. As a result, many AI investments have stalled at the prototype level, never reaching clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: To improve the chances of future AI implementation projects succeeding, we analyzed the experiences of clinical AI system implementers to better understand the challenges and success factors in their implementations. METHODS: Thirty-seven implementers of clinical AI from European and North and South American countries were interviewed. Semi-structured interviews were transcribed and analyzed qualitatively with the framework method, identifying the success factors and the reasons for challenges as well as documenting proposals from implementers to improve AI adoption in clinical settings. RESULTS: We gathered the implementers' requirements for facilitating AI adoption in the clinical setting. The main findings include 1) the lesser importance of AI explainability in favor of proper clinical validation studies, 2) the need to actively involve clinical practitioners, and not only clinical researchers, in the inception of AI research projects, 3) the need for better information structures and processes to manage data access and the ethical approval of AI projects, 4) the need for better support for regulatory compliance and avoidance of duplications in data management approval bodies, 5) the need to increase both clinicians' and citizens' literacy as respects the benefits and limitations of AI, and 6) the need for better funding schemes to support the implementation, embedding, and validation of AI in the clinical workflow, beyond pilots. CONCLUSION: Participants in the interviews are positive about the future of AI in clinical settings. At the same time, they proposenumerous measures to transfer research advancesinto implementations that will benefit healthcare personnel. Transferring AI research into benefits for healthcare workers and patients requires adjustments in regulations, data access procedures, education, funding schemes, and validation of AI systems.

De-identifying Norwegian Clinical Text using Resources from Swedish and Danish.

The lack of relevant annotated datasets represents one key limitation in the application of Natural Language Processing techniques in a broad number of tasks, among them Protected Health Information (PHI) identification in Norwegian clinical text. In this work, the possibility of exploiting resources from Swedish, a very closely related language, to Norwegian is explored. The Swedish dataset is annotated with PHI information. Different processing and text augmentation techniques are evaluated, along with their impact in the final performance of the model. The augmentation techniques, such as injection and generation of both Norwegian and Scandinavian Named Entities into the Swedish training corpus, showed to increase the performance in the de-identification task for both Danish and Norwegian text. This trend was also confirmed by the evaluation of model performance on a sample Norwegian gastro surgical clinical text.

Artificial Intelligence Implementation in Healthcare: A Theory-Based Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators.

There is a large proliferation of complex data-driven artificial intelligence (AI) applications in many aspects of our daily lives, but their implementation in healthcare is still limited. This scoping review takes a theoretical approach to examine the barriers and facilitators based on empirical data from existing implementations. We searched the major databases of relevant scientific publications for articles related to AI in clinical settings, published between 2015 and 2021. Based on the theoretical constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we used a deductive, followed by an inductive, approach to extract facilitators and barriers. After screening 2784 studies, 19 studies were included in this review. Most of the cited facilitators were related to engagement with and management of the implementation process, while the most cited barriers dealt with the intervention's generalizability and interoperability with existing systems, as well as the inner settings' data quality and availability. We noted per-study imbalances related to the reporting of the theoretic domains. Our findings suggest a greater need for implementation science expertise in AI implementation projects, to improve both the implementation process and the quality of scientific reporting.