clinical care team
Designing AI Tools for Clinical Care Teams to Support Serious Illness Conversations with Older Adults in the Emergency Department
Zhao, Menglin, Yong, Zhuorui, Guan, Ruijia, Chang, Kai-Wei, Haimovich, Adrian, Ouchi, Kei, Bickmore, Timothy, Yao, Bingsheng, Wang, Dakuo, Desai, Smit
Serious illness conversations (SICs), discussions between clinical care teams and patients with serious, life-limiting illnesses about their values, goals, and care preferences, are critical for patient-centered care. Without these conversations, patients often receive aggressive interventions that may not align with their goals. Clinical care teams face significant barriers when conducting serious illness conversations with older adult patients in Emergency Department (ED) settings, where most older adult patients lack documented treatment goals. To understand current practices and identify AI support opportunities, we conducted interviews with two domain experts and nine ED clinical care team members. Through thematic analysis, we characterized a four-phase serious illness conversation workflow (identification, preparation, conduction, documentation) and identified key needs and challenges at each stage. Clinical care teams struggle with fragmented EHR data access, time constraints, emotional preparation demands, and documentation burdens. While participants expressed interest in AI tools for information synthesis, conversational support, and automated documentation, they emphasized preserving human connection and clinical autonomy. We present design guidelines for AI tools supporting SIC workflows that fit within existing clinical practices. This work contributes empirical understanding of ED-based serious illness conversations and provides design considerations for AI in high-stakes clinical environments.
- North America > United States > California > Los Angeles County > Los Angeles (0.28)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston (0.05)
- North America > United States > Virginia (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Israel (0.04)
- Workflow (1.00)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- (2 more...)
Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Prostate Cancer In-Basket Messages: Responses from Closed-Domain LLM vs. Clinical Teams
Hao, Yuexing, Holmes, Jason M., Hobson, Jared, Bennett, Alexandra, Ebner, Daniel K., Routman, David M., Shiraishi, Satomi, Patel, Samir H., Yu, Nathan Y., Hallemeier, Chris L., Ball, Brooke E., Waddle, Mark R., Liu, Wei
In-basket message interactions play a crucial role in physician-patient communication, occurring during all phases (pre-, during, and post) of a patient's care journey. However, responding to these patients' inquiries has become a significant burden on healthcare workflows, consuming considerable time for clinical care teams. To address this, we introduce RadOnc-GPT, a specialized Large Language Model (LLM) powered by GPT-4 that has been designed with a focus on radiotherapeutic treatment of prostate cancer with advanced prompt engineering, and specifically designed to assist in generating responses. We integrated RadOnc-GPT with patient electronic health records (EHR) from both the hospital-wide EHR database and an internal, radiation-oncology-specific database. RadOnc-GPT was evaluated on 158 previously recorded in-basket message interactions. Quantitative natural language processing (NLP) analysis and two grading studies with clinicians and nurses were used to assess RadOnc-GPT's responses. Our findings indicate that RadOnc-GPT slightly outperformed the clinical care team in "Clarity" and "Empathy," while achieving comparable scores in "Completeness" and "Correctness." RadOnc-GPT is estimated to save 5.2 minutes per message for nurses and 2.4 minutes for clinicians, from reading the inquiry to sending the response. Employing RadOnc-GPT for in-basket message draft generation has the potential to alleviate the workload of clinical care teams and reduce healthcare costs by producing high-quality, timely responses.
- North America > United States > Minnesota > Olmsted County > Rochester (0.04)
- North America > United States > Arizona > Maricopa County > Phoenix (0.04)
- North America > Canada > British Columbia > Metro Vancouver Regional District > Vancouver (0.04)
- Asia > Singapore (0.04)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)