Watson, autonomy and value flexibility: revisiting the debate

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107513
Author(s):  
Jasper Debrabander ◽  
Heidi Mertes
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Value Sensitive Design ◽  
Flexible Design ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
The Impact

Many ethical concerns have been voiced about Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs). Special attention has been paid to the effect of CDSSs on autonomy, responsibility, fairness and transparency. This journal has featured a discussion between Rosalind McDougall and Ezio Di Nucci that focused on the impact of IBM’s Watson for Oncology (Watson) on autonomy. The present article elaborates on this discussion in three ways. First, using Jonathan Pugh’s account of rational autonomy we show that how Watson presents its results might impact decisional autonomy, while how Watson produces knowledge might affect practical autonomy. Second, by drawing an analogy with patient decision aids we identify an empirical way of estimating Watson’s impact on autonomy (ie, value-congruence). Lastly, McDougall introduced the notion of value-flexible design as a way to account for the diverging preferences patients hold. We will clarify its relation with the established domain of value-sensitive design. In terms of the tripartite methodology of value-sensitive design, we offer a conceptual clarification using Pugh’s account of rational autonomy, an empirical tool to evaluate Watson’s impact on autonomy and situate a group of technical options to incorporate autonomy in Watson’s design.

scholarly journals The Changing Nature of Clinical Decision Support Systems: a Focus on Consumers, Genomics, Public Health and Decision Safety

2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (01) ◽  
pp. 84-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Y. S. Lau ◽  
G. Tsafnat ◽  
V. Sintchenko ◽  
F. Magrabi ◽  
E. Coiera
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Genetic Data ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Translational Bioinformatics ◽  
The Impact

Summary Objectives To review the recent research literature in clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Methods A review of recent literature was undertaken, focussing on CDSS evaluation, consumers and public health, the impact of translational bioinformatics on CDSS design, and CDSS safety. Results In recent years, researchers have concentrated much less on the development of decision technologies, and have focussed more on the impact of CDSS in the clinical world. Recent work highlights that traditional process measures of CDSS effectiveness, such as document relevance are poor proxy measures for decision outcomes. Measuring the dynamics of decision making, for example via decision velocity, may produce a more accurate picture of effectiveness. Another trend is the broadening of user base for CDSS beyond front line clinicians. Consumers are now a major focus for biomedical informatics, as are public health officials, tasked with detecting and managing disease outbreaks at a health system, rather than individual patient level. Bioinformatics is also changing the nature of CDSS. Apart from personalisation of therapy recommendations, translational bioinformatics is creating new challenges in the interpretation of the meaning of genetic data. Finally, there is much recent interest in the safety and effectiveness of computerised physicianorderentry (CPOE) systems, given that prescribing and administration errors are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Of note, there is still much controversy surrounding the contention that poorly designed, implemented or used CDSS may actually lead to harm. Conclusions CDSS research remains an active and evolving area of research, as CDSS penetrate more widely beyond their traditional domain into consumer decision support, and as decisions become more complex, for example by involving sequence level genetic data.

Clinical Decision Support Systems in Nursing

2010 ◽  
pp. 1056-1070
Author(s):  
Dawn Dowding ◽  
Rebecca Randell ◽  
Natasha Mitchell ◽  
Rebecca Foster ◽  
Valerie Lattimer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Technical Factors ◽  
The Impact

Increasingly, new and extended roles and responsibilities for nurses are being supported through the introduction of clinical decision support systems (CDSS). This chapter provides an overview of research on nurses’ use of CDSS, considers the impact of CDSS on nurse decision making and patient outcomes, and explores the socio-technical factors that impact the use of CDSS. In addition to summarising previous research, both on nurses’ use of CDSS and on use of CDSS more generally, the chapter presents the results of a multi-site case study that explored how CDSS are used by nurses in practice in a range of contexts. The chapter takes a socio-technical approach, exploring the barriers and facilitators to effective CDSS use at a level of the technology itself, the ways people work, and the organisations in which they operate.

Clinical Decision Support Systems in Nursing

2009 ◽  
pp. 26-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn Dowding ◽  
Rebecca Randell ◽  
Natasha Mitchell ◽  
Rebecca Foster ◽  
Valerie Lattimer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Technical Factors ◽  
The Impact

Increasingly, new and extended roles and responsibilities for nurses are being supported through the introduction of clinical decision support systems (CDSS). This chapter provides an overview of research on nurses’ use of CDSS, considers the impact of CDSS on nurse decision making and patient outcomes, and explores the socio-technical factors that impact the use of CDSS. In addition to summarising previous research, both on nurses’ use of CDSS and on use of CDSS more generally, the chapter presents the results of a multi-site case study that explored how CDSS are used by nurses in practice in a range of contexts. The chapter takes a socio-technical approach, exploring the barriers and facilitators to effective CDSS use at a level of the technology itself, the ways people work, and the organisations in which they operate.

OP196 Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) For Antibiotic Management: Factors Limiting Sustainable Digital Transformation

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 5-5
Author(s):  
Mah Laka ◽  
Adriana Milazzo ◽  
Drew Carter ◽  
Tracy Merlin
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
System Level ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionClinical decision support systems (CDSS) are being developed to support evidence-based antibiotic prescribing and reduce the risk of inappropriate or over-prescribing; however, adoption of CDSS into the health system is rarely sustained. We aimed to understand the implementation challenges at a macro (policymakers), meso (organizational) and micro-level (individual practices) to identify the drivers of CDSS non-adoption.MethodsWe have adopted a mixed-method study design which comprised of: (i) systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of CDSS on appropriate antibiotic prescribing, (ii) Online survey of clinicians in Australia from hospitals and primary care to identify drivers of CDSS adoption and (iii) in-depth interviews with policymakers to evaluate policy-level challenges and opportunities to CDSS implementation.ResultsCDSS implementation can improve compliance with antibiotic prescribing guidelines, with a relative decrease in mortality, volume of antibiotic use and length of hospital stay. However, CDSS provision alone is not enough to achieve these benefits. Important predictors of clinicians’ perception regarding CDSS adoption include the seniority of clinical end-users (years), use of CDSS, and the care setting. Clinicians in primary care and those with significant clinical experience are less likely to use CDSS due to a lack of trust in the system, fear of comprising professional autonomy, and patients’ expectations. Lack of important policy considerations for CDSS integration into a multi-stakeholder healthcare system has limited the organizational capacity to foster change and align processes to support the innovation.ConclusionsThese results using multiple lines of evidence highlight the importance of a holistic approach when undertaking health technology management. There needs to be system-wide guidance that integrates individual, organizational and system-level factors when implementing CDSS so that effective antibiotic stewardship can be facilitated.

Architectures for Architects

1993 ◽  
Vol 32 (01) ◽  
pp. 12-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Musen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Design And Development

Abstract:Response to Heathfield HA, Wyatt J. Philosophies for the design and development of clinical decision-support systems. Meth Inform Med 1993; 32: 1-8.

Characterizing Decision Support Telemedicine Systems

2006 ◽  
Vol 45 (05) ◽  
pp. 523-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Abu-Hanna ◽  
B. Nannings
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Problem Dimension ◽  
Process Dimension

Summary Objectives: Decision Support Telemedicine Systems (DSTS) are at the intersection of two disciplines: telemedicine and clinical decision support systems (CDSS). The objective of this paper is to provide a set of characterizing properties for DSTSs. This characterizing property set (CPS) can be used for typing, classifying and clustering DSTSs. Methods: We performed a systematic keyword-based literature search to identify candidate-characterizing properties. We selected a subset of candidates and refined them by assessing their potential in order to obtain the CPS. Results: The CPS consists of 14 properties, which can be used for the uniform description and typing of applications of DSTSs. The properties are grouped in three categories that we refer to as the problem dimension, process dimension, and system dimension. We provide CPS instantiations for three prototypical applications. Conclusions: The CPS includes important properties for typing DSTSs, focusing on aspects of communication for the telemedicine part and on aspects of decisionmaking for the CDSS part. The CPS provides users with tools for uniformly describing DSTSs.

scholarly journals The acceptance of clinical decision support systems among clinicians in the treatment of neck and/or back pain

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
S M Jansen-Kosterink ◽  
M Cabrita ◽  
I Flierman
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Case Based Reasoning ◽  
Online Questionnaire

Abstract Background Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) are computerized systems using case-based reasoning to assist clinicians in making clinical decisions. Despite the proven added value to public health, the implementation of CDSS clinical practice is scarce. Particularly, little is known about the acceptance of CDSS among clinicians. Within the Back-UP project (Project Number: H2020-SC1-2017-CNECT-2-777090) a CDSS is developed with prognostic models to improve the management of Neck and/or Low Back Pain (NLBP). Therefore, the aim of this study is to present the factors involved in the acceptance of CDSSs among clinicians. Methods To assess the acceptance of CDSSs among clinicians we conducted a mixed method analysis of questionnaires and focus groups. An online questionnaire with a low-fidelity prototype of a CDSS (TRL3) was sent to Dutch clinicians aimed to identify the factors influencing the acceptance of CDSSs (intention to use, perceived threat to professional autonomy, trusting believes and perceived usefulness). Next to this, two focus groups were conducted with clinicians addressing the general attitudes towards CDSSs, the factors determining the level of acceptance, and the conditions to facilitate use of CDSSs. Results A pilot-study of the online questionnaire is completed and the results of the large evaluation are expected spring 2020. Eight clinicians participated in two focus groups. After being introduced to various types of CDSSs, participants were positive about the value of CDSS in the care of NLBP. The clinicians agreed that the human touch in NLBP care must be preserved and that CDSSs must remain a supporting tool, and not a replacement of their role as professionals. Conclusions By identifying the factors hindering the acceptance of CDSSs we can draw implications for implementation of CDSSs in the treatment of NLBP.

scholarly journals A Narrative Review of Clinical Decision Support for Inpatient Clinical Pharmacists

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
pp. 199-207
Author(s):  
Liang Yan ◽  
Thomas Reese ◽  
Scott D. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Pharmacists ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective Increasingly, pharmacists provide team-based care that impacts patient care; however, the extent of recent clinical decision support (CDS), targeted to support the evolving roles of pharmacists, is unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the literature to understand the impact of clinical pharmacists using CDS. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, and quasi-experimental studies which evaluated CDS tools that were developed for inpatient pharmacists as a target user. The primary outcome of our analysis was the impact of CDS on patient safety, quality use of medication, and quality of care. Outcomes were scored as positive, negative, or neutral. The secondary outcome was the proportion of CDS developed for tasks other than medication order verification. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results Of 4,365 potentially relevant articles, 15 were included. Five studies were randomized controlled trials. All included studies were rated as good quality. Of the studies evaluating inpatient pharmacists using a CDS tool, four showed significantly improved quality use of medications, four showed significantly improved patient safety, and three showed significantly improved quality of care. Six studies (40%) supported expanded roles of clinical pharmacists. Conclusion These results suggest that CDS can support clinical inpatient pharmacists in preventing medication errors and optimizing pharmacotherapy. Moreover, an increasing number of CDS tools have been developed for pharmacists' roles outside of order verification, whereby further supporting and establishing pharmacists as leaders in safe and effective pharmacotherapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document