Implementing AI in Hospitals to Achieve a Learning Health System: Systematic Review of Current Enablers and Barriers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Efforts are underway to capitalize on the computational power of the data collected in electronic medical records (EMRs) to achieve a learning health system (LHS). Artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has promised to improve clinical outcomes, and many researchers are developing AI algorithms on retrospective data sets. Integrating these algorithms with real-time EMR data is rare. There is a poor understanding of the current enablers and barriers to empower this shift from data set-based use to real-time implementation of AI in health systems. Exploring these factors holds promise for uncovering actionable insights toward the successful integration of AI into clinical workflows. OBJECTIVE: The first objective was to conduct a systematic literature review to identify the evidence of enablers and barriers regarding the real-world implementation of AI in hospital settings. The second objective was to map the identified enablers and barriers to a 3-horizon framework to enable the successful digital health transformation of hospitals to achieve an LHS. METHODS: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were adhered to. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore were searched for studies published between January 2010 and January 2022. Articles with case studies and guidelines on the implementation of AI analytics in hospital settings using EMR data were included. We excluded studies conducted in primary and community care settings. Quality assessment of the identified papers was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and ADAPTE frameworks. We coded evidence from the included studies that related to enablers of and barriers to AI implementation. The findings were mapped to the 3-horizon framework to provide a road map for hospitals to integrate AI analytics. RESULTS: Of the 1247 studies screened, 26 (2.09%) met the inclusion criteria. In total, 65% (17/26) of the studies implemented AI analytics for enhancing the care of hospitalized patients, whereas the remaining 35% (9/26) provided implementation guidelines. Of the final 26 papers, the quality of 21 (81%) was assessed as poor. A total of 28 enablers was identified; 8 (29%) were new in this study. A total of 18 barriers was identified; 5 (28%) were newly found. Most of these newly identified factors were related to information and technology. Actionable recommendations for the implementation of AI toward achieving an LHS were provided by mapping the findings to a 3-horizon framework. CONCLUSIONS: Significant issues exist in implementing AI in health care. Shifting from validating data sets to working with live data is challenging. This review incorporated the identified enablers and barriers into a 3-horizon framework, offering actionable recommendations for implementing AI analytics to achieve an LHS. The findings of this study can assist hospitals in steering their strategic planning toward successful adoption of AI.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,044 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».