AI-Assisted Decision-Making in Long-Term Care: Qualitative Study on Prerequisites for Responsible Innovation

被引:1
作者
Lukkien, Dirk R. M. [1 ,2 ]
Stolwijk, Nathalie E. [1 ]
Askari, Sima Ipakchian [1 ,3 ]
Hofstede, Bob M. [1 ,3 ]
Nap, Henk Herman [1 ,3 ]
Boon, Wouter P. C. [2 ]
Peine, Alexander [4 ]
Moors, Ellen H. M. [2 ]
Minkman, Mirella M. N. [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Vilans Ctr Expertise Long Term Care, Churchilllaan 11, NL-3505 RE Utrecht, Netherlands
[2] Univ Utrecht, Copernicus Inst Sustainable Dev, Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] Eindhoven Univ Technol, Human Technol Interact, Eindhoven, Netherlands
[4] Open Univ Netherlands, Fac Humanities, Heerlen, Netherlands
[5] Tilburg Univ, TIAS Sch Business & Soc, Tilburg, Netherlands
来源
JMIR NURSING | 2024年 / 7卷
关键词
decision support systems; ethics; long-term care; responsible innovation; stakeholder perspectives; SUPPORT-SYSTEMS; AUTOMATION; HEALTH; BIAS;
D O I
10.2196/55962
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Background: Although the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies, such as AI-based decision support systems (AI-DSSs), can help sustain and improvethe quality and efficiency of care, their deployment creates ethical and social challenges. In recent years, a growing prevalence of high-level guidelines and frameworks for responsible AI innovation has been observed. However, few studies have specified the responsible embedding of AI-based technologies, such as AI-DSSs, in specific contexts, such as the nursing process in long-term care (LTC) for older adults. Objective: Prerequisites for responsible AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice were explored from the perspectives of nurses and other professional stakeholders in LTC. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 24 care professionalsin Dutch LTC, including nurses, care coordinators, data specialists, and care centralists. A total of 2 imaginary scenarios about AI-DSSs were developed beforehand and used to enable participants articulate their expectations regarding the opportunities and risks of AI-assisted decision-making. In addition, 6 high-level principles for responsible AI were used as probing themes to evoke further consideration of the risks associated with using AI-DSSs in LTC. Furthermore, the participants were asked to brainstorm possible strategies and actions in the design, implementation, and use of AI-DSSs to address or mitigate these risks. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the opportunities and risks of AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice and the associated prerequisites for responsible innovation in this area. Results: The stance of care professionals on the use of AI-DSSs is not a matter of purely positive or negative expectations but rather a nuanced interplay of positive and negative elements that lead to a weighed perception of the prerequisites for responsible AI-assisted decision-making. Both opportunities and risks were identified in relation to the early identification of care needs, guidance in devising care strategies, shared decision-making, and the workload of and work experience of caregivers. To optimally balance the opportunities and risks of AI-assisted decision-making, seven categories of prerequisites for responsible AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice were identified: (1) regular deliberation on data collection; (2) a balanced proactive nature of AI-DSSs; (3) incremental advancements aligned with trust and experience; (4) customization for alluser groups, including clients and caregivers; (5) measures to counteract bias and narrow perspectives; (6) human-centric learning loops; and (7) the routinization of using AI-DSSs. Conclusions:The opportunities of AI-assisted decision-making in nursing practice could turn into drawbacks depending on the specific shaping of the design and deployment of AI-DSSs. Therefore, we recommend considering the responsible use of AI-DSSs as a balancing act. Moreover, considering the interrelatedness of the identified prerequisites, we call for various actors, including developers and users of AI-DSSs, to cohesively address the different factors important to the responsible embedding of AI-DSSs in practice.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 80 条
  • [1] Automation in nursing decision support systems: A systematic review of effects on decision making, care delivery, and patient outcomes
    Akbar, Saba
    Lyell, David
    Magrabi, Farah
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2021, 28 (11) : 2502 - 2513
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2024, Explanatory memorandum on the updated OECD definition of an AI system
  • [3] Algorithmic harms and digital ageism in the use of surveillance technologies in nursing homes
    Berridge, Clara
    Grigorovich, Alisa
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN SOCIOLOGY, 2022, 7
  • [4] Domain Experts on Dementia-Care Technologies: Mitigating Risk in Design and Implementation
    Berridge, Clara
    Demiris, George
    Kaye, Jeffrey
    [J]. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2021, 27 (01)
  • [5] Becoming partners, retaining autonomy: ethical considerations on the development of precision medicine
    Blasimme, Alessandro
    Vayena, Effy
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL ETHICS, 2016, 17 : 1 - 8
  • [6] One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?
    Braun, Virginia
    Clarke, Victoria
    [J]. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2021, 18 (03) : 328 - 352
  • [7] Buchanan Christine, 2020, JMIR Nurs, V3, pe23939, DOI 10.2196/23939
  • [8] Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence
    Buhmann, Alexander
    Fieseler, Christian
    [J]. TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY, 2021, 64
  • [9] Carrol J. M., 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers, DOI 10.1109/HICSS.1999.772890
  • [10] Digital Ageism: Challenges and Opportunities in Artificial Intelligence for Older Adults
    Chu, Charlene H.
    Nyrup, Rune
    Leslie, Kathleen
    Shi, Jiamin
    Bianchi, Andria
    Lyn, Alexandra
    McNicholl, Molly
    Khan, Shehroz
    Rahimi, Samira
    Grenier, Amanda
    Meeks, Suzanne
    [J]. GERONTOLOGIST, 2022, 62 (07) : 947 - 955