Decision-making in anesthesiology: will artificial intelligence make intraoperative care safer?
Journal
Current opinion in anaesthesiology
ISSN: 1473-6500
Titre abrégé: Curr Opin Anaesthesiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8813436
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Dec 2023
01 Dec 2023
Historique:
medline:
31
10
2023
pubmed:
22
10
2023
entrez:
22
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This article explores the impact of recent applications of artificial intelligence on clinical anesthesiologists' decision-making. Naturalistic decision-making, a rich research field that aims to understand how cognitive work is accomplished in complex environments, provides insight into anesthesiologists' decision processes. Due to the complexity of clinical work and limits of human decision-making (e.g. fatigue, distraction, and cognitive biases), attention on the role of artificial intelligence to support anesthesiologists' decision-making has grown. Artificial intelligence, a computer's ability to perform human-like cognitive functions, is increasingly used in anesthesiology. Examples include aiding in the prediction of intraoperative hypotension and postoperative complications, as well as enhancing structure localization for regional and neuraxial anesthesia through artificial intelligence integration with ultrasound. To fully realize the benefits of artificial intelligence in anesthesiology, several important considerations must be addressed, including its usability and workflow integration, appropriate level of trust placed on artificial intelligence, its impact on decision-making, the potential de-skilling of practitioners, and issues of accountability. Further research is needed to enhance anesthesiologists' clinical decision-making in collaboration with artificial intelligence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37865848
doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000001318
pii: 00001503-990000000-00143
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
691-697Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Zaouter C, Joosten A, Rinehart J, et al. Autonomous systems in anesthesia: where do we stand in 2020? A narrative review. Anesth Analg 2020; 130:1120–1132.
London MJ. Back to the OR of the future: how do we make it a good one? Anesthesiology 2021; 135:206–208.
Tremper KK. Back to the OR of the future: comment. Anesthesiology 2022; 136:393.
Naturalistic Decision Making Association. Principles of naturalistic decision making. 2023 [cited 2023 June 30]; Available at: https://naturalisticdecisionmaking.org/ndm-principles/ . [Accessed 30 June 2023]
Reale C, Salwei ME, Militello LG, et al. Decision-making during high-risk events: a systematic literature review. J Cogn Eng Decision Making 2023; 17:188–212.
Schulz CM, Endsley MR, Kochs EF, et al. Situation awareness in anesthesia: concept and research. Anesthesiology 2013; 118:729–742.
Rudolph JW, Morrison JB, Carroll JS. The dynamics of action-oriented problem solving: linking interpretation and choice. Acad Manage Rev 2009; 34:733–756.
Gaba DM, Fish KJ, Howard SK, et al. Crisis management in anesthesiology. 2nd ed.Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.
Klein GA. A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. Decision making in action: models and methods , 1993;5(4):138–147.
Biebuyck JF, Weinger MB, Englund CE. Ergonomic and human factors affecting anesthetic vigilance and monitoring performance in the operating room environment. J Am Soc Anesthesiol 1990; 73:995–1021.
Hyman SA, Card EB, De Leon-Casasola O, et al. Prevalence of burnout and its relationship to health status and social support in more than 1000 subspecialty anesthesiologists. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2021; 46:381–387.
Liberman JS, Slagle JM, Whitney G, et al. Incidence and classification of nonroutine events during anesthesia care. Anesthesiology 2020; 133:41–52.
Slagle JM, Porterfield ES, Lorinc AN, et al. Prevalence of potentially distracting noncare activities and their effects on vigilance, workload, and nonroutine events during anesthesia care. Anesthesiology 2018; 128:44–54.
Weinger MB, Gaba DM. Human factors engineering in patient safety. Anesthesiology 2014; 120:801–806.
Bellini V, Carna ER, Russo M, et al. Artificial intelligence and anesthesia: a narrative review. Ann Transl Med 2022; 10:
Bellini V, Valente M, Gaddi AV, et al. Artificial intelligence and telemedicine in anesthesia: potential and problems. Minerva Anestesiol 2022; 88:729–734.
Maciąg TT, van Amsterdam K, Ballast A, et al. Machine learning in anesthesiology: detecting adverse events in clinical practice. Health Informatics J 2022; 28:14604582221112855.
Monge García MI, García-López D, Gayat É, et al. Hypotension prediction index software to prevent intraoperative hypotension during major non-cardiac surgery: protocol for a European Multicenter Prospective Observational Registry (EU-HYPROTECT). J Clin Med 2022; 11:5585.
Jo Y-Y, Jang J-H, Kwon J-m, et al. Predicting intraoperative hypotension using deep learning with waveforms of arterial blood pressure, electroencephalogram, and electrocardiogram: Retrospective study. Plos one 2022; 17:e0272055.
Bishara A, Wong A, Wang L, et al. Opal: an implementation science tool for machine learning clinical decision support in anesthesia. J Clin Monit Comput 2022; 36:1367–1377.
Fuica R, Krochek C, Weissbrod R, et al. Reduced postoperative pain in patients receiving nociception monitor guided analgesia during elective major abdominal surgery: a randomized, controlled trial. J Clin Monit Comput 2023; 37:481–491.
Xu C, Zhu Y, Wu L, et al. Evaluating the effect of an artificial intelligence system on the anesthesia quality control during gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2022; 22:1–11.
Bowness J, El-Boghdadly K, Burckett-St Laurent D. Artificial intelligence for image interpretation in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2021; 76:602–607.
Bowness JS, Burckett-St Laurent D, Hernandez N, et al. Assistive artificial intelligence for ultrasound image interpretation in regional anaesthesia: an external validation study. Br J Anaesth 2023; 130:217–225.
Bowness JS, El-Boghdadly K, Woodworth G, et al. Exploring the utility of assistive artificial intelligence for ultrasound scanning in regional anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2022; 47:375–379.
Bowness JS, Macfarlane AJ, Burckett-St Laurent D, et al. Evaluation of the impact of assistive artificial intelligence on ultrasound scanning for regional anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2023; 130:226–233.
Lloyd J, Morse R, Taylor A, et al. Artificial intelligence: innovation to assist in the identification of sono-anatomy for ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. Adv Exp Med Biol 2022; 1356:117–140.
Larkin HD. FDA approves artificial intelligence device for guiding regional anesthesia. JAMA 2022; 328:2101.
Compagnone C, Borrini G, Calabrese A, et al. Artificial intelligence enhanced ultrasound (AI-US) in a severe obese parturient: a case report. Ultrasound J 2022; 14:34.
Haro-Mendoza D, Pérez-Escamirosa F, Pineda-Martínez D, Gonzalez-Villela VJ. Needle path planning in semiautonomous and teleoperated robot-assisted epidural anaesthesia procedure: a proof of concept. Int J Med Robot 2022; 18:e2434.
Nair BG, Gabel E, Hofer I, et al. Intraoperative clinical decision support for anesthesia: a narrative review of available systems. Anesth Analg 2017; 124:603–617.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). 2023, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Matheny M, Israni ST, Ahmed M, et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: the hope, the hype, the promise, the peril. Natl Acad Med 2020. 94–97.
Coalition for Health AI. Blueprint for trustworthy AI: implementation guidance and assurance for healthcare. The MITRE Corporation. Duke University. Version 1.0. 4 April 2023.
Char DS, Burgart A. Machine learning implementation in clinical anesthesia: opportunities and challenges. Anesth Analg 2020; 130:1709.
van der Ven WH, Veelo DP, Wijnberge M, et al. One of the first validations of an artificial intelligence algorithm for clinical use: the impact on intraoperative hypotension prediction and clinical decision-making. Surgery 2021; 169:1300–1303.
Benda NC, Novak LL, Reale C, Ancker JS. Trust in AI: why we should be designing for APPROPRIATE reliance. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2022; 29:207–212.
Benda, NC, Reale C, Ancker J, et al. Purpose, process, performance: designing for appropriate trust of AI in healthcare. in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama. 2021.
Ray JM, Ratwani RM, Sinsky CA, et al. Six habits of highly successful health information technology: powerful strategies for design and implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26:1109–1114.
Garvey KV, Craig KJT, Russell RG, et al. The potential and the imperative: the gap in ai-related clinical competencies and the need to close it. Med Sci Educ 2021; 31:2055–2060.
Russell RG, Lovett Novak L, Patel M, et al. Competencies for the use of artificial intelligence–based tools by healthcare professionals. Acad Med 2023; 98:348–356.
Salwei ME, Carayon P. A sociotechnical systems framework for the application of artificial intelligence in healthcare delivery. J Cogn Eng Decis Making 2022; 16:194–206.
Casner SM, Geven RW, Recker MP, Schooler JW. The retention of manual flying skills in the automated cockpit. Hum Factors 2014; 56:1506–1516.