Implementing AI in Hospitals to Achieve a Learning Health System: Systematic Review of Current Enablers and Barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".