Needs and expectations for artificial intelligence in emergency medicine according to Canadian physicians.

BACKGROUND: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is recognized by emergency physicians (EPs) as an important technology that will affect clinical practice. Several AI-tools have already been developed to aid care delivery in emergency medicine (EM). However, many EM tools appear to have been developed without a cross-disciplinary needs assessment, making it difficult to understand their broader importance to general-practice. Clinician surveys about AI tools have been conducted within other medical specialties to help guide future design. This study aims to understand the needs of Canadian EPs for the apt use of AI-based tools. METHODS: A national cross-sectional, two-stage, mixed-method electronic survey of Canadian EPs was conducted from January-May 2022. The survey includes demographic and physician practice-pattern data, clinicians' current use and perceptions of AI, and individual rankings of which EM work-activities most benefit from AI. RESULTS: The primary outcome is a ranked list of high-priority AI-tools for EM that physicians want translated into general use within the next 10 years. When ranking specific AI examples, 'automated charting/report generation', 'clinical prediction rules' and 'monitoring vitals with early-warning detection' were the top items. When ranking by physician work-activities, 'AI-tools for documentation', 'AI-tools for computer use' and 'AI-tools for triaging patients' were the top items. For secondary outcomes, EPs indicated AI was 'likely' (43.1%) or 'extremely likely' (43.7%) to be able to complete the task of 'documentation' and indicated either 'a-great-deal' (32.8%) or 'quite-a-bit' (39.7%) of potential for AI in EM. Further, EPs were either 'strongly' (48.5%) or 'somewhat' (39.8%) interested in AI for EM. CONCLUSIONS: Physician input on the design of AI is essential to ensure the uptake of this technology. Translation of AI-tools to facilitate documentation is considered a high-priority, and respondents had high confidence that AI could facilitate this task. This study will guide future directions regarding the use of AI for EM and help direct efforts to address prevailing technology-translation barriers such as access to high-quality application-specific data and developing reporting guidelines for specific AI-applications. With a prioritized list of high-need AI applications, decision-makers can develop focused strategies to address these larger obstacles.

A systematic review of extravasation and local tissue injury from administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters and central venous catheters.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to collect and describe all published reports of local tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via either peripheral intravenous (IV) or central venous catheter. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed from inception through January 2014 for reports of adults who received vasopressor intravenously via peripheral IV or central venous catheter for a therapeutic purpose. We included primary studies or case reports of vasopressor administration that resulted in local tissue injury or extravasation of vasopressor solution. RESULTS: Eighty-five articles with 270 patients met all inclusion criteria. A total of 325 separate local tissue injury and extravasation events were identified, with 318 events resulting from peripheral vasopressor administration and 7 events resulting from central administration. There were 204 local tissue injury events from peripheral administration of vasopressors, with an average duration of infusion of 55.9 hours (±68.1), median time of 24 hours, and range of 0.08 to 528 hours. In most of these events (174/204, 85.3%), the infusion site was located distal to the antecubital or popliteal fossae. CONCLUSIONS: Published data on tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs are derived mainly from case reports. Further study is warranted to clarify the safety of vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs.