Clinicians and AI use: Where is the professional guidance?

Helen Smith; John R Downer; Jonathan C S Ives

doi:10.1136/jme-2022-108831

Clinicians and AI use: Where is the professional guidance?

Helen Smith^*, John R Downer, Jonathan C S Ives

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

With the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) to healthcare, there is also a need for professional guidance to support its use. New (2022) reports from NHS AI Lab and Health Education England (HEE) focus on healthcare workers’ understanding and confidence in AI clinical decision support systems (AI-CDDSs), and are concerned with developing trust in, and the trustworthiness of these systems. While they offer guidance to aid developers and purchasers of such systems, however, they offer little specific guidance for the clinical users who will be required to use them in patient care.

This paper argues that clinical, professional, and reputational safety will be risked if this deficit of professional guidance for clinical users of AI-CDDSs is not redressed. We argue it is not enough to develop training for clinical users without first establishing professional guidance regarding the rights and expectations of clinical users.

We conclude with a call to action for clinical regulators: to unite to draft guidance for users of AI-CDDS that helps manage clinical, professional, and reputational risks. We further suggest that this exercise offers an opportunity to address fundamental issues in the use of AI-CDDSs; regarding, for example, the fair burden of responsibility for outcomes.

Original language	English
Article number	jme-2022-108831
Journal	Journal of Medical Ethics
Early online date	22 Aug 2023
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108831
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 22 Aug 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
All authors are part funded via the UKRI’s Trustworthy Autonomous Systems Node in Functionality under grant number EP/V026518/1. HS is additionally supported by the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute, University of Bristol via the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund. JI is in part supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol.

Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Access to Document

10.1136/jme-2022-108831Licence: CC BY

Handle.net

Persistent link

UKRI Trustworthy Autonomous Systems Node In Functionality
Windsor, S. P. (Principal Investigator), Ives, J. C. S. (Co-Investigator), Downer, J. R. (Co-Investigator), Rossiter, J. M. (Co-Investigator), Eder, K. I. (Co-Investigator) & Hauert, S. (Co-Investigator)
1/11/20 → 30/04/24
Project: Research, Parent

Cite this

@article{5c9aedc61bd84626b2cb9189df318000,

title = "Clinicians and AI use: Where is the professional guidance?",

abstract = "With the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) to healthcare, there is also a need for professional guidance to support its use. New (2022) reports from NHS AI Lab and Health Education England (HEE) focus on healthcare workers{\textquoteright} understanding and confidence in AI clinical decision support systems (AI-CDDSs), and are concerned with developing trust in, and the trustworthiness of these systems. While they offer guidance to aid developers and purchasers of such systems, however, they offer little specific guidance for the clinical users who will be required to use them in patient care. This paper argues that clinical, professional, and reputational safety will be risked if this deficit of professional guidance for clinical users of AI-CDDSs is not redressed. We argue it is not enough to develop training for clinical users without first establishing professional guidance regarding the rights and expectations of clinical users. We conclude with a call to action for clinical regulators: to unite to draft guidance for users of AI-CDDS that helps manage clinical, professional, and reputational risks. We further suggest that this exercise offers an opportunity to address fundamental issues in the use of AI-CDDSs; regarding, for example, the fair burden of responsibility for outcomes. ",

author = "Helen Smith and Downer, {John R} and Ives, {Jonathan C S}",

note = "Funding Information: All authors are part funded via the UKRI{\textquoteright}s Trustworthy Autonomous Systems Node in Functionality under grant number EP/V026518/1. HS is additionally supported by the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute, University of Bristol via the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund. JI is in part supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.",

year = "2023",

month = aug,

day = "22",

doi = "10.1136/jme-2022-108831",

language = "English",

journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",

issn = "0306-6800",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinicians and AI use

T2 - Where is the professional guidance?

AU - Smith, Helen

AU - Downer, John R

AU - Ives, Jonathan C S

N1 - Funding Information: All authors are part funded via the UKRI’s Trustworthy Autonomous Systems Node in Functionality under grant number EP/V026518/1. HS is additionally supported by the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute, University of Bristol via the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund. JI is in part supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

PY - 2023/8/22

Y1 - 2023/8/22

N2 - With the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) to healthcare, there is also a need for professional guidance to support its use. New (2022) reports from NHS AI Lab and Health Education England (HEE) focus on healthcare workers’ understanding and confidence in AI clinical decision support systems (AI-CDDSs), and are concerned with developing trust in, and the trustworthiness of these systems. While they offer guidance to aid developers and purchasers of such systems, however, they offer little specific guidance for the clinical users who will be required to use them in patient care. This paper argues that clinical, professional, and reputational safety will be risked if this deficit of professional guidance for clinical users of AI-CDDSs is not redressed. We argue it is not enough to develop training for clinical users without first establishing professional guidance regarding the rights and expectations of clinical users. We conclude with a call to action for clinical regulators: to unite to draft guidance for users of AI-CDDS that helps manage clinical, professional, and reputational risks. We further suggest that this exercise offers an opportunity to address fundamental issues in the use of AI-CDDSs; regarding, for example, the fair burden of responsibility for outcomes.

AB - With the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) to healthcare, there is also a need for professional guidance to support its use. New (2022) reports from NHS AI Lab and Health Education England (HEE) focus on healthcare workers’ understanding and confidence in AI clinical decision support systems (AI-CDDSs), and are concerned with developing trust in, and the trustworthiness of these systems. While they offer guidance to aid developers and purchasers of such systems, however, they offer little specific guidance for the clinical users who will be required to use them in patient care. This paper argues that clinical, professional, and reputational safety will be risked if this deficit of professional guidance for clinical users of AI-CDDSs is not redressed. We argue it is not enough to develop training for clinical users without first establishing professional guidance regarding the rights and expectations of clinical users. We conclude with a call to action for clinical regulators: to unite to draft guidance for users of AI-CDDS that helps manage clinical, professional, and reputational risks. We further suggest that this exercise offers an opportunity to address fundamental issues in the use of AI-CDDSs; regarding, for example, the fair burden of responsibility for outcomes.

U2 - 10.1136/jme-2022-108831

DO - 10.1136/jme-2022-108831

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

C2 - 37607805

SN - 0306-6800

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

M1 - jme-2022-108831

ER -

Clinicians and AI use: Where is the professional guidance?

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Handle.net

Fingerprint

Projects

UKRI Trustworthy Autonomous Systems Node In Functionality

Cite this