Impacts of Clinical Decision Support Systems on the Relationship, Communication, and Shared Decision-Making Between Health Care Professionals and Patients: Multistakeholder Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are increasingly being introduced into various domains of health care. Little is known so far about the impact of such systems on the health care professional-patient relationship, and there is a lack of agreement about whether and how patients should be informed about the use of CDSSs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore, in an empirically informed manner, the potential implications for the health care professional-patient relationship and to underline the importance of this relationship when using CDSSs for both patients and future professionals. METHODS: Using a methodological triangulation, 15 medical students and 12 trainee nurses were interviewed in semistructured interviews and 18 patients were involved in focus groups between April 2021 and April 2022. All participants came from Germany. Three examples of CDSSs covering different areas of health care (ie, surgery, nephrology, and intensive home care) were used as stimuli in the study to identify similarities and differences regarding the use of CDSSs in different fields of application. The interview and focus group transcripts were analyzed using a structured qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: From the interviews and focus groups analyzed, three topics were identified that interdependently address the interactions between patients and health care professionals: (1) CDSSs and their impact on the roles of and requirements for health care professionals, (2) CDSSs and their impact on the relationship between health care professionals and patients (including communication requirements for shared decision-making), and (3) stakeholders' expectations for patient education and information about CDSSs and their use. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that using CDSSs could restructure established power and decision-making relationships between (future) health care professionals and patients. In addition, respondents expected that the use of CDSSs would involve more communication, so they anticipated an increased time commitment. The results shed new light on the existing discourse by demonstrating that the anticipated impact of CDSSs on the health care professional-patient relationship appears to stem less from the function of a CDSS and more from its integration in the relationship. Therefore, the anticipated effects on the relationship between health care professionals and patients could be specifically addressed in patient information about the use of CDSSs.

[Supporting medical and nursing activities with AI: recommendations for responsible design and use]. / Unterstützung ärztlicher und pflegerischer Tätigkeit durch KI: Handlungsempfehlungen für eine verantwortbare Gestaltung und Nutzung.

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) based on artificial intelligence (AI) are complex socio-technical innovations and are increasingly being used in medicine and nursing to improve the overall quality and efficiency of care, while also addressing limited financial and human resources. However, in addition to such intended clinical and organisational effects, far-reaching ethical, social and legal implications of AI-based CDSS on patient care and nursing are to be expected. To date, these normative-social implications have not been sufficiently investigated. The BMBF-funded project DESIREE (DEcision Support In Routine and Emergency HEalth Care: Ethical and Social Implications) has developed recommendations for the responsible design and use of clinical decision support systems. This article focuses primarily on ethical and social aspects of AI-based CDSS that could have a negative impact on patient health. Our recommendations are intended as additions to existing recommendations and are divided into the following action fields with relevance across all stakeholder groups: development, clinical use, information and consent, education and training, and (accompanying) research.

[Reasons for non-participation in a patient survey in the context of prehospital emergency medical care by community emergency paramedics - A retrospective observational study]. / Gründe für die Nichtteilnahme an einer Patientenbefragung im Kontext der prähospitalen Notfallversorgung durch Gemeindenotfallsanitäter - eine retrospektive Beobachtungsstudie.

BACKGROUND: In order to evaluate whether the new rescue means "community emergency paramedics" (Gemeindenotfallsanitäter [G-NFS]) relieves the emergency medical service (EMS) in the care of low-priority emergencies, the perspective of general practitioners and patients was also surveyed in a written questionnaire as part of an innovation fund project. Recruitment for participation in the study proved to be difficult. The aim of this study is to evaluate why the G-NFS decided against providing information on study participation and what measures would be necessary to include more emergency patients in surveys in the future. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the assignment protocols from April 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. In addition to patient characteristics, data on treatments, interventions and recommendations to patients as well as reasons for non-participation in the patient survey were collected. RESULTS: 5,395 G-NFS protocols that contained information on non-participation were included in the analysis. The average age of the patients was 62.4 years (SD 22.7), and 50.2% were female. 57.4% of the cases were categorised as non-urgent, and 35.2% of the cases required an additional ambulance to be alerted. 404 (7.5%) patients used the EMS more than once, 1,120 (20.8%) did not have sufficient language skills, 1,012 (18.8%) patients declined study participation, and 2,975 (55.1%) patients were not able to participate according to the G-NFS assessment. Dementia/neurocognitive impairment (35%), acute/emergency situation (26.5%), mental health impairment (10.3%), and substance abuse (6.5%) were given as reasons for non-participation from the G-NFS perspective. DISCUSSION: The results show that more than half of the patients were unable to take part in a written survey for various reasons, even though there was no need for urgent care. This could be due to a high demand for care and the complex consent procedure. In addition, further resources are required to provide needs-based care for these patients in order to relieve the burden on emergency medical care. Over half of the patients were unable to take part in a written survey for various reasons. Further research is needed to determine what consent procedures are appropriate to facilitate patients' study participation.