Clinicians and AI use
Where is the professional guidance
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21515158 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Helen Smith (0000-0003-2212-2781, University of Bristol, corresponding author), John Downer (0000-0003-0936-3628, University of Bristol), Jonathan Ives (0000-0002-5233-5000, University of Bristol) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 50 |
| Issue | 7 |
| Pages | 437-441 |
| Publication date | 2024-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Medical Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0306-6800 • E-ISSN: 1473-4257 |
| Publisher | BMJ (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1136/jme-2022-108831 |
| PMID | 37607805 |
| OpenAlex | W4386070426 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 8 |
With the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) to healthcare, there is also a need for professional guidance to support its use. New (2022) reports from National Health Service AI Lab & Health Education England focus on healthcare workers’ understanding and confidence in AI clinical decision support systems (AI-CDDSs), and are concerned with developing trust in, and the trustworthiness of these systems. While they offer guidance to aid developers and purchasers of such systems, they offer little specific guidance for the clinical users who will be required to use them in patient care. This paper argues that clinical, professional and reputational safety will be risked if this deficit of professional guidance for clinical users of AI-CDDSs is not redressed. We argue it is not enough to develop training for clinical users without first establishing professional guidance regarding the rights and expectations of clinical users. We conclude with a call to action for clinical regulators: to unite to draft guidance for users of AI-CDDS that helps manage clinical, professional and reputational risks. We further suggest that this exercise offers an opportunity to address fundamental issues in the use of AI-CDDSs; regarding, for example, the fair burden of responsibility for outcomes
Health care · Health professionals · Medical education · Political science · Professional association · Public relations · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Law · Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues · Medicine · Psychology
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 4 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |