The impact of nuance DAX ambient listening AI documentation: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the use of an ambient listening/digital scribing solution (Nuance Dragon Ambient eXperience (DAX)) on caregiver engagement, time spent on Electronic Health Record (EHR) including time after hours, productivity, attributed panel size for value-based care providers, documentation timeliness, and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) submissions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a peer-matched controlled cohort study from March to September 2022 to evaluate the impact of DAX in outpatient clinics in an integrated healthcare system. Primary outcome measurements included provider engagement survey results, reported patient safety events related to DAX use, patients' Likelihood to Recommend score, number of patients opting out of ambient listening, change in work relative values units, attributed value-based primary care panel size, documentation completion and CPT code submission deficiency rates, and note turnaround time. RESULTS: A total of 99 providers representing 12 specialties enrolled in the study; 76 matched control group providers were included for analysis. Median utilization of DAX was 47% among active participants. We found positive trends in provider engagement, while non-participants saw worsening engagement and no practical change in productivity. There was a statistically significant worsening of after-hours EHR. There was no quantifiable effect on patient safety. DISCUSSION: Nuance DAX use showed positive trends in provider engagement at no risk to patient safety, experience, or clinical documentation. There were no significant benefits to patient experience, documentation, or measures of provider productivity. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the potential of ambient dictation as a tool for improving the provider experience. Head-to-head comparisons of EHR documentation efficiency training are needed.

Goals of care among hospitalized patients: a validation study.

Our objective was to validate 6 literature-derived goals of care by analyzing open-ended and closed-ended responses about goals of care from a previous study of hospitalized patients. Eight clinicians categorized patients' open-ended articulations of their goals of care using a literature-derived framework and then compared those categorizations to patients' own closed-ended selections of their most important goal of care. Clinicians successfully categorized patients' open-ended responses using the literature-derived framework 83.5% of the time, and their categorizations matched patients' closed-ended most important goal of care 87.8% of the time. Goals that did not fit within the literature-derived framework all pertained to the goal of understanding a patient's diagnosis or prognosis; this seventh potential goal can be added to the literature-derived framework of 6 goals of care.