ChatGPT-3.5 System Usability Scale early assessment among Healthcare Workers: Horizons of adoption in medical practice.

Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, such as ChatGPT, have widely invaded all domains of human life. They have the potential to transform healthcare future. However, their effective implementation hinges on healthcare workers' (HCWs) adoption and perceptions. This study aimed to evaluate HCWs usability of ChatGPT three months post-launch in Saudi Arabia using the System Usability Scale (SUS). A total of 194 HCWs participated in the survey. Forty-seven percent were satisfied with their usage, 57 % expressed moderate to high trust in its ability to generate medical decisions. 58 % expected ChatGPT would improve patients' outcomes, even though 84 % were optimistic of its potential to improve the future of healthcare practice. They expressed possible concerns like recommending harmful medical decisions and medicolegal implications. The overall mean SUS score was 64.52, equivalent to 50 % percentile rank, indicating high marginal acceptability of the system. The strongest positive predictors of high SUS scores were participants' belief in AI chatbot's benefits in medical research, self-rated familiarity with ChatGPT and self-rated computer skills proficiency. Participants' learnability and ease of use score correlated positively but weakly. On the other hand, medical students and interns had significantly high learnability scores compared to others, while ease of use scores correlated very strongly with participants' perception of positive impact of ChatGPT on the future of healthcare practice. Our findings highlight the HCWs' perceived marginal acceptance of ChatGPT at the current stage and their optimism of its potential in supporting them in future practice, especially in the research domain, in addition to humble ambition of its potential to improve patients' outcomes particularly in regard of medical decisions. On the other end, it underscores the need for ongoing efforts to build trust and address ethical and legal concerns of AI implications in healthcare. The study contributes to the growing body of literature on AI chatbots in healthcare, especially addressing its future improvement strategies and provides insights for policymakers and healthcare providers about the potential benefits and challenges of implementing them in their practice.

Remote interviews for medical residency selection during the initial COVID-19 crisis: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Medical training programs candidate's interview is an integral part of the residency matching process. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conducting these interviews was challenging due to infection prevention restrains (social distancing, namely) and travel restrictions. E-interviews were implemented by the Saudi Commission for Healthcare Specialties (SCFHS) since the matching cycle of March 2020 to hold the interviews in a safer virtual environment while maintaining the same matching quality and standards. AIM: This study was conducted to assess the medical training residency program applicants' satisfaction, stress, and other perspectives for the (SCFHS) March 2020 Matching-cycle conducted through an urgently implemented E-interviews process. METHOD: A cross-sectional, nationwide survey (Additional file 1) was sent to 4153 residency-nominated applicants to the (SCFHS) March 2020 cycle. RESULTS: Among the 510 candidates who responded, 62.2% applied for medical specialties, 20.2% applied for surgical specialties, and 17.6% applied for critical care and emergency specialties. Most respondents (61.2%) never had previous experience with web-based video conferences. Most respondents (80.2%) used the Zoom application to conduct the current E-interviews, whereas only 15.9% used the FaceTime application. 63.3% of the respondents preferred E-interviews over in-person interviews, and 60.6% rated their experience as very good or excellent. 75.7% of the respondents agreed that all their residency program queries were adequately addressed during the E-interviews. At the same time, 52.2% of them agreed that E-interviews allowed them to represent themselves accurately. 28.2% felt no stress at all with their E-interviews experience, while 41.2% felt little stressed and only 8.2% felt highly stressed. The factors that were independently and inversely associated with applicants' level of stress with E-interviews experience were their ability to represent themselves during the interviews (p = 0.001), cost-savings (p < 0.001), their overall rating of the E-interviews quality (p = 0.007) and the speed of the internet connection (p < 0.006). CONCLUSION: Videoconferencing was implemented on an urgent basis during the COVID-19 pandemic in the medical residency application process in Saudi Arabia. It was perceived as an adequate and promising tool to replace in-person interviews in the future. Applicants' satisfaction was mainly driven by good organization, cost-saving, and their ability to present themselves. Future studies to enhance this experience are warranted.

Cost Effectiveness of ACEIs/ARBs versus Amlodipine Monotherapies: A Single-Center Retrospective Chart Review.

The aim of this retrospective chart review study was to examine the cost effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs); angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs); and dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) such as amlodipine, monotherapies in the management of essential hypertension among adult patients (≥18 years) without cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease in the primary care clinics of a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital. Patients were followed up for at least 12 months from the initiation of therapy. Propensity score bin bootstrapping with 10,000 replications was conducted to generate the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for both treatment outcome (e.g., reduction of the systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressures (DBP) in mmHG) and the cost (e.g., costs of drugs, clinic visits, and labs in Saudi riyals (SAR)). Among the 153 included patients who met the inclusion criteria, 111 patients were on ACEIs/ARBs, while 44 patients were on amlodipine. On the basis of the bootstrap distribution, we found that the use of ACEIs/ARBs was associated with an incremental reduction of SBP of up to 4.46 mmHg but with an incremental cost of up to SAR 116.39 (USD 31.04), which results in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SAR 26.09 (USD 6.95) per 1 mmHg reduction with 55.26% level of confidence. With regard to DBP, ACEIs/ARBs were associated with an incremental reduction of DBP of up to 5.35 mmHg and an incremental cost of up to SAR 144.96 (USD 38.66), which results in an ICER of SAR 27.09 (USD 7.23) per 1 mmHg reduction with 68.10% level of confidence. However, ACEIs/ARBs were less effective and costlier than amlodipine in reducing SBP and DBP with 44.74% and 31.89% levels of confidence, respectively. The findings of this study indicate that the use of ACEI or ARB as a monotherapy seems to be more effective than amlodipine monotherapy in the management of essential hypertension in primary care settings with minimal incremental cost.

Predictors and Direct Cost Estimation of Long Stays in Pediatric Intensive Care Units in Saudi Arabia: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Several factors influence patients' length of stay (LOS) in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). This study explored the factors and cost associated with long LOS among pediatric patient population across various PICUs and pediatric surgical cardiac intensive care units (SCICUs). METHODS: This is a multi-center concurrent mixed-methods study that was conducted in different PICUs and SCICUs in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The units' leaders were qualitatively interviewed to explore the potential factors contributing to long LOSs in PICUs and SCICUs, and deductive content analysis was used. Microcosting was utilized to estimate the inpatient costs for a sample of long-stay patients (LSPs) and the potential cost savings if those patients were transferred to step-down care units (SDUs) for those who stayed ≥60 days. RESULTS: Ten (90%) leaders of PICUs and SCICUs who were invited had participated. Changing the admission criteria, patient transfer to SDUs, family engagement in the decision-making process, and adopting a national do-not-resuscitate (DNR) policy were factors contributing to short LOSs. On the other hand, administrative constraints, staff avoidance of code status decisions, lack of palliative care resources, and complex patient characteristics were factors associated with long LOSs. The mean inpatient cost per patient was SAR 3.63 million (USD 0.97 million), and the total cost for the 48 patients was SAR 172.95 million (USD 46.12 million). CONCLUSION: If the recommendation to transfer LSPs after a 60-day PICU stay to SDUs is taken, the estimated cost savings among this sample of patients alone can be as high as SAR 109.47 million (USD 29.19 million). Therefore, future studies should examine the factors contributing to long LOSs in PICUs and SCICUs as well as the effectiveness of different policies aimed at improving the resource allocation and management using more robust study designs and diverse patient population.

Building a Culture of Health Informatics Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A New Frontier.

Entrepreneurship and innovation within the health informatics (HI) scientific community are relatively sluggish when compared to other disciplines such as computer science and engineering. Healthcare in general, and specifically, the health informatics scientific community needs to embrace more innovative and entrepreneurial practices. In this paper, we explore the concepts of innovation and entrepreneurship as they apply to the health informatics scientific community. We also outline several strategies to improve the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship within the health informatics scientific community such as: (I) incorporating innovation and entrepreneurship in health informatics education; (II) creating strong linkages with industry and healthcare organizations; (III) supporting national health innovation and entrepreneurship competitions; (IV) creating a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship within healthcare organizations; (V) developing health informatics policies that support innovation and entrepreneurship based on internationally recognized standards; and (VI) develop an health informatics entrepreneurship ecosystem. With these changes, we conclude that embracing health innovation and entrepreneurship may be more readily accepted over the long-term within the health informatics scientific community.