Search

Objective: To assess Australian and New Zealand emergency clinicians' attitudes towards the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in emergency medicine. Methods: We undertook a qualitative interview‐based study based on grounded theory. Participants were recruited through ED internal mailing lists, the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Bulletin, and the research teams' personal networks. Interviews were transcribed, coded and themes presented. Results: Twenty‐five interviews were conducted between July 2021 and May 2022. Thematic saturation was achieved after 22 interviews. Most participants were from either Western Australia (52%) or Victoria (16%) and were consultants (96%). More participants reported feeling optimistic (10/25) than neutral (6/25), pessimistic (2/25) or mixed (7/25) towards the use of AI in the ED. A minority expressed scepticism regarding the feasibility or value of implementing AI into the ED. Multiple potential risks and ethical issues were discussed by participants including skill loss from overreliance on AI, algorithmic bias, patient privacy and concerns over liability. Participants also discussed perceived inadequacies in existing information technology systems. Participants felt that AI technologies would be used as decision support tools and not replace the roles of emergency clinicians. Participants were not concerned about the impact of AI on their job security. Most (17/25) participants thought that AI would impact emergency medicine within the next 10 years. Conclusions: Emergency clinicians interviewed were generally optimistic about the use of AI in emergency medicine, so long as it is used as a decision support tool and they maintain the ability to override its recommendations. This qualitative study found that emergency clinicians in Australia and New Zealand were generally optimistic about the use of artificial intelligence (AI)‐enabled decision support tools in EDs. A number of issues were raised that require attention before full acceptance. AI‐enabled tools must operate as decision support only, be locally validated, be effectively integrated into existing workflows and take ethical concerns into consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: International guidelines provide increasing support for computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in investigating chest pain. A pathway utilising CTCA first‐line for outpatient stable chest pain evaluation was implemented in an Australian ED. Methods: In pre‐post design, the impact of the pathway was prospectively assessed over 6 months (August 2021 to January 2022) and compared with a 6‐month pre‐implementation group (February 2021 to July 2021). CTCA was recommended first‐line in suspected stable cardiac chest pain, followed by chest pain clinic review. Predefined criteria were provided recommending functional testing in select patients. The impact of CTCA versus functional testing was evaluated. Data were obtained from digital medical records. Results: Three hundred and fifteen patients were included, 143 pre‐implementation and 172 post‐implementation. Characteristics were similar except age (pre‐implementation: 58.9 ± 12.0 vs post‐implementation: 62.8 ± 12.3 years, P = 0.004). Pathway‐guided management resulted in higher first‐line CTCA (73.3% vs 46.2%, P < 0.001), lower functional testing (30.2% vs 56.6%, P < 0.001) and lower proportion undergoing two non‐invasive tests (4.7% vs 10.5%, P = 0.047), without increasing investigation costs or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) (pre‐implementation: 13.3% vs post‐implementation: 9.3%, P = 0.263). In patients undergoing CTCA, 40.7% had normal coronaries and 36.2% minimal/mild disease, with no difference in disease burden post‐implementation. More medication changes occurred following CTCA compared with functional testing (aspirin: P = 0.005, statin: P < 0.001). In patients undergoing ICA, revascularisation to ICA ratio was higher following CTCA compared with functional testing (91.7% vs 18.2%, P < 0.001). No 30‐day myocardial infarction or death occurred. Conclusions: The pathway increased CTCA utilisation and reduced downstream investigations. CTCA was associated with medication changes and improved ICA efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Methods Results Conclusion To investigate health consumers' ethical concerns towards the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in EDs.Qualitative semi‐structured interviews with health consumers, recruited via health consumer networks and community groups, interviews conducted between January and August 2022.We interviewed 28 health consumers about their perceptions towards the ethical use of AI in EDs. The results discussed in this paper highlight the challenges and barriers for the effective and ethical implementation of AI from the perspective of Australian health consumers. Most health consumers are more likely to support AI health tools in EDs if they continue to be involved in the decision‐making process. There is considerably more approval of AI tools that support clinical decision‐making, as opposed to replacing it. There is mixed sentiment about the acceptability of AI tools influencing clinical decision‐making and judgement. Health consumers are mostly supportive of the use of their data to train and develop AI tools but are concerned with who has access. Addressing bias and discrimination in AI is an important consideration for some health consumers. Robust regulation and governance are critical for health consumers to trust and accept the use of AI.Health consumers view AI as an emerging technology that they want to see comprehensively regulated to ensure it functions safely and securely with EDs. Without considerations made for the ethical design, implementation and use of AI technologies, health consumer trust and acceptance in the use of these tools will be limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]