Search

Objectives Inpatients with language barriers and complex medical needs suffer disparities in quality of care, safety, and health outcomes. Although in-person interpreters are particularly beneficial for these patients, they are underused. We plan to use machine learning predictive analytics to reliably identify patients with language barriers and complex medical needs to prioritize them for in-person interpreters. Materials and methods This qualitative study used stakeholder engagement through semi-structured interviews to understand the perceived risks and benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) in this domain. Stakeholders included clinicians, interpreters, and personnel involved in caring for these patients or for organizing interpreters. Data were coded and analyzed using NVIVO software. Results We completed 49 interviews. Key perceived risks included concerns about transparency, accuracy, redundancy, privacy, perceived stigmatization among patients, alert fatigue, and supply–demand issues. Key perceived benefits included increased awareness of in-person interpreters, improved standard of care and prioritization for interpreter utilization; a streamlined process for accessing interpreters, empowered clinicians, and potential to overcome clinician bias. Discussion This is the first study that elicits stakeholder perspectives on the use of AI with the goal of improved clinical care for patients with language barriers. Perceived benefits and risks related to the use of AI in this domain, overlapped with known hazards and values of AI but some benefits were unique for addressing challenges with providing interpreter services to patients with language barriers. Conclusion Artificial intelligence to identify and prioritize patients for interpreter services has the potential to improve standard of care and address healthcare disparities among patients with language barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Diagnostic error (DE) is a common problem in clinical practice, particularly in the emergency department (ED) setting. Among ED patients presenting with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, a delay in diagnosis or failure to hospitalise may be most impactful in terms of adverse outcomes. Minorities and other vulnerable populations may be at higher risk of DE. We aimed to systematically review studies reporting the frequency and causes of DE in under-resourced patients presenting to the ED with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms. Methods We searched EBM Reviews, Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science from 2000 through 14 August 2022. Data were abstracted by two independent reviewers using a standardised form. The risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results Of the 7342 studies screened, we included 20 studies evaluating 7436,737 patients. Most studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was multicountry. 11 studies evaluated DE in patients with cerebrovascular/ neurological symptoms, 8 studies with cardiovascular symptoms and 1 study examined both types of symptoms. 13 studies investigated missed diagnoses and 7 studies explored delayed diagnoses. There was significant clinical and methodological variability, including heterogeneity of DE definitions and predictor variable definitions as well as methods of DE assessment, study design and reporting. Among the studies evaluating cardiovascular symptoms, black race was significantly associated with higher odds of DE in 4/6 studies evaluating missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS) diagnosis compared with white race (OR from 1.18 (1.12-1.24) to 4.5 (1.8-11.8)). The association between other analysed factors (ethnicity, insurance and limited English proficiency) and DE in this domain varied from study to study and was inconclusive. Among the studies evaluating DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, no consistent association was found indicating higher or lower odds of DE. Although some studies showed significant differences, these were not consistently in the same direction. The overall ROB was low for most included studies; however, the certainty of evidence was very low, mostly due to serious inconsistency in definitions and measurement approaches across studies. Conclusions This systematic review demonstrated consistent increased odds of missed AMI/ACS diagnosis among black patients presenting to the ED compared with white patients in most studies. No consistent associations between demographic groups and DE related to cerebrovascular/neurological diagnoses were identified. More standardised approaches to study design, measurement of DE and outcomes assessment are needed to understand this problem among vulnerable populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Our aim was to explore reasons for physician variability in decisions to limit life support in the intensive care unit (ICU) utilizing qualitative methodology. Methods Single center study consisting of semi-structured interviews with experienced physicians and nurses. Seventeen intensivists from medical (n = 7), surgical (n = 5), and anesthesia (n = 5) critical care backgrounds, and ten nurses from medical (n = 5) and surgical (n = 5) ICU backgrounds were interviewed. Principles of grounded theory were used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results Eleven factors within four categories were identified that influenced physician variability in decisions to limit life support: (1) physician work environment-workload and competing priorities, shift changes and handoffs, and incorporation of nursing input; (2) physician experiences-of unexpected patient survival, and of limiting life support in physician's family; (3) physician attitudes-investment in a good surgical outcome, specialty perspective, values and beliefs; and (4) physician relationship with patient and family-hearing the patient's wishes firsthand, engagement in family communication, and family negotiation. Conclusions We identified several factors which physicians and nurses perceived were important sources of physician variability in decisions to limit life support. Ways to raise awareness and ameliorate the potentially adverse effects of factors such as workload, competing priorities, shift changes, and handoffs should be explored. Exposing intensivists to long term patient outcomes, formalizing nursing input, providing additional training, and emphasizing firsthand knowledge of patient wishes may improve decision making., Author(s): Michael E. Wilson [sup.1], Lori M. Rhudy [sup.2] [sup.3], Beth A. Ballinger [sup.4], Ann N. Tescher [sup.2], Brian W. Pickering [sup.5], Ognjen Gajic [sup.6] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.66875.3a, 000000040459167X, [...]