Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
"Many roads lead to Rome and the Artificial Intelligence only shows me one road": an interview study on physician attitudes regarding the implementation of computerised clinical decision support systems.
Van Cauwenberge, Daan; Van Biesen, Wim; Decruyenaere, Johan; Leune, Tamara; Sterckx, Sigrid.
Afiliação
  • Van Cauwenberge D; Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Bioethics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
  • Van Biesen W; Consortium for Justifiable Digital Healthcare, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
  • Decruyenaere J; Consortium for Justifiable Digital Healthcare, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
  • Leune T; Department of Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
  • Sterckx S; Consortium for Justifiable Digital Healthcare, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
BMC Med Ethics ; 23(1): 50, 2022 05 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35524301
ABSTRACT
Research regarding the drivers of acceptance of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) by physicians is still rather limited. The literature that does exist, however, tends to focus on problems regarding the user-friendliness of CDSS. We have performed a thematic analysis of 24 interviews with physicians concerning specific clinical case vignettes, in order to explore their underlying opinions and attitudes regarding the introduction of CDSS in clinical practice, to allow a more in-depth analysis of factors underlying (non-)acceptance of CDSS. We identified three general themes from the results. First, 'the perceived role of the AI', including items referring to the tasks that may properly be assigned to the CDSS according to the respondents. Second, 'the perceived role of the physician', referring to the aspects of clinical practice that were seen as being fundamentally 'human' or non-automatable. Third, 'concerns regarding AI', including items referring to more general issues that were raised by the respondents regarding the introduction of CDSS in general and/or in clinical medicine in particular. Apart from the overall concerns expressed by the respondents regarding user-friendliness, we will explain how our results indicate that our respondents were primarily occupied by distinguishing between parts of their job that should be automated and aspects that should be kept in human hands. We refer to this distinction as 'the division of clinical labor.' This division is not based on knowledge regarding AI or medicine, but rather on which parts of a physician's job were seen by the respondents as being central to who they are as physicians and as human beings. Often the respondents' view that certain core parts of their job ought to be shielded from automation was closely linked to claims concerning the uniqueness of medicine as a domain. Finally, although almost all respondents claimed that they highly value their final responsibility, a closer investigation of this concept suggests that their view of 'final responsibility' was not that demanding after all.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Médicos / Sistemas de Apoio a Decisões Clínicas Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: BMC Med Ethics Assunto da revista: ETICA Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Bélgica

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Médicos / Sistemas de Apoio a Decisões Clínicas Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: BMC Med Ethics Assunto da revista: ETICA Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Bélgica