Clinical Decision Support System For Prediction Research Articles

Factors Influencing Clinician Trust in Predictive Clinical Decision Support Systems for In-Hospital Deterioration: Qualitative Descriptive Study.

BackgroundClinician trust in machine learning–based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) for predicting in-hospital deterioration (a type of predictive CDSS) is essential for adoption. Evidence shows that clinician trust in predictive CDSSs is influenced by perceived understandability and perceived accuracy.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the phenomenon of clinician trust in predictive CDSSs for in-hospital deterioration by confirming and characterizing factors known to influence trust (understandability and accuracy), uncovering and describing other influencing factors, and comparing nurses’ and prescribing providers’ trust in predictive CDSSs.MethodsWe followed a qualitative descriptive methodology conducting directed deductive and inductive content analysis of interview data. Directed deductive analyses were guided by the human-computer trust conceptual framework. Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurses and prescribing providers (physicians, physician assistants, or nurse practitioners) working with a predictive CDSS at 2 hospitals in Mass General Brigham.ResultsA total of 17 clinicians were interviewed. Concepts from the human-computer trust conceptual framework—perceived understandability and perceived technical competence (ie, perceived accuracy)—were found to influence clinician trust in predictive CDSSs for in-hospital deterioration. The concordance between clinicians’ impressions of patients’ clinical status and system predictions influenced clinicians’ perceptions of system accuracy. Understandability was influenced by system explanations, both global and local, as well as training. In total, 3 additional themes emerged from the inductive analysis. The first, perceived actionability, captured the variation in clinicians’ desires for predictive CDSSs to recommend a discrete action. The second, evidence, described the importance of both macro- (scientific) and micro- (anecdotal) evidence for fostering trust. The final theme, equitability, described fairness in system predictions. The findings were largely similar between nurses and prescribing providers.ConclusionsAlthough there is a perceived trade-off between machine learning–based CDSS accuracy and understandability, our findings confirm that both are important for fostering clinician trust in predictive CDSSs for in-hospital deterioration. We found that reliance on the predictive CDSS in the clinical workflow may influence clinicians’ requirements for trust. Future research should explore the impact of reliance, the optimal explanation design for enhancing understandability, and the role of perceived actionability in driving trust.

Clinician involvement in research on machine learning-based predictive clinical decision support for the hospital setting: A scoping review.

The study sought to describe the prevalence and nature of clinical expert involvement in the development, evaluation, and implementation of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that utilize machine learning to analyze electronic health record data to assist nurses and physicians in prognostic and treatment decision making (ie, predictive CDSSs) in the hospital. A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and IEEE Xplore and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings were conducted to identify eligible articles. Empirical studies of predictive CDSSs using electronic health record data for nurses or physicians in the hospital setting published in the last 5 years in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings were eligible for synthesis. Data from eligible studies regarding clinician involvement, stage in system design, predictive CDSS intention, and target clinician were charted and summarized. Eighty studies met eligibility criteria. Clinical expert involvement was most prevalent at the beginning and late stages of system design. Most articles (95%) described developing and evaluating machine learning models, 28% of which described involving clinical experts, with nearly half functioning to verify the clinical correctness or relevance of the model (47%). Involvement of clinical experts in predictive CDSS design should be explicitly reported in publications and evaluated for the potential to overcome predictive CDSS adoption challenges. If present, clinical expert involvement is most prevalent when predictive CDSS specifications are made or when system implementations are evaluated. However, clinical experts are less prevalent in developmental stages to verify clinical correctness, select model features, preprocess data, or serve as a gold standard.