Expectations and Requirements of Surgical Staff for an AI-Supported Clinical Decision Support System for Older Patients: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Geriatric comanagement has been shown to improve outcomes of older surgical inpatients. Furthermore, the choice of discharge location, that is, continuity of care, can have a fundamental impact on convalescence. These challenges and demands have led to the SURGE-Ahead project that aims to develop a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for geriatric comanagement in surgical clinics including a decision support for the best continuity of care option, supported by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Objective: This qualitative study aims to explore the current challenges and demands in surgical geriatric patient care. Based on these challenges, the study explores the attitude of interviewees toward the introduction of an AI-supported CDSS (AI-CDSS) in geriatric patient care in surgery, focusing on technical and general wishes about an AI-CDSS, as well as ethical considerations. Methods: In this study, 15 personal interviews with physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, and social workers, employed in surgical departments at a university hospital in Southern Germany, were conducted in April 2022. Interviews were conducted in person, transcribed, and coded by 2 researchers (AU, LB) using content and thematic analysis. During the analysis, quotes were sorted into the main categories of geriatric patient care, use of an AI-CDSS, and ethical considerations by 2 authors (AU, LB). The main themes of the interviews were subsequently described in a narrative synthesis, citing key quotes. Results: In total, 399 quotes were extracted and categorized from the interviews. Most quotes could be assigned to the primary code challenges in geriatric patient care (111 quotes), with the most frequent subcode being medical challenges (45 quotes). More quotes were assigned to the primary code chances of an AI-CDSS (37 quotes), with its most frequent subcode being holistic patient overview (16 quotes), then to the primary code limits of an AI-CDSS (26 quotes). Regarding the primary code technical wishes (37 quotes), most quotes could be assigned to the subcode intuitive usability (15 quotes), followed by mobile availability and easy access (11 quotes). Regarding the main category ethical aspects of an AI-CDSS, most quotes could be assigned to the subcode critical position toward trust in an AI-CDSS (9 quotes), followed by the subcodes respecting the patient's will and individual situation (8 quotes) and responsibility remaining in the hands of humans (7 quotes). Conclusions: Support regarding medical geriatric challenges and responsible handling of AI-based recommendations, as well as necessity for a holistic approach focused on usability, were the most important topics of health care professionals in surgery regarding development of an AI-CDSS for geriatric care. These findings, together with the wish to preserve the patient-caregiver relationship, will help set the focus for the ongoing development of AI-supported CDSS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".