Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Yearb Med Inform 2019; 28(01): 041-046
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1677901
Special Section: Artificial Intelligence in Health: New Opportunities, Challenges, and Practical Implications
Working Group Contributions
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Artificial Intelligence in Primary Health Care: Perceptions, Issues, and Challenges

Primary Health Care Informatics Working Group Contribution to the Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2019
Harshana Liyanage
1   Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK
,
Siaw-Teng Liaw
2   School of Public Health & Community Medicine, UNSW Medicine Australia, Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, NSW, Australia
,
Jitendra Jonnagaddala
2   School of Public Health & Community Medicine, UNSW Medicine Australia, Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, NSW, Australia
,
Richard Schreiber
3   Geisinger Holy Spirit, Camp Hill, PA, USA
,
Craig Kuziemsky
4   Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
,
Amanda L Terry
5   Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada
,
Simon de Lusignan
1   Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 April 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is heralded as an approach that might augment or substitute for the limited processing power of the human brain of primary health care (PHC) professionals. However, there are concerns that AI-mediated decisions may be hard to validate and challenge, or may result in rogue decisions.

Objective: To form consensus about perceptions, issues, and challenges of AI in primary care.

Method: A three-round Delphi study was conducted. Round 1 explored experts’ viewpoints on AI in PHC (n=20). Round 2 rated the appropriateness of statements arising from round one (n=12). The third round was an online panel discussion of findings (n=8) with the members of both the International Medical Informatics Association and the European Federation of Medical Informatics Primary Health Care Informatics Working Groups.

Results: PHC and informatics experts reported AI has potential to improve managerial and clinical decisions and processes, and this would be facilitated by common data standards. The respondents did not agree that AI applications should learn and adapt to clinician preferences or behaviour and they did not agree on the extent of AI potential for harm to patients. It was more difficult to assess the impact of AI-based applications on continuity and coordination of care.

Conclusion: While the use of AI in medicine should enhance healthcare delivery, we need to ensure meticulous design and evaluation of AI applications. The primary care informatics community needs to be proactive and to guide the ethical and rigorous development of AI applications so that they will be safe and effective.

Keywords

Medical record systems, computerised - privacy - general practice - Delphi technique - Artificial Intelligence

Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Beard JR, Bloom DE. Towards a comprehensive public health response to population ageing. Lancet 2015; 385 (9968) 658-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. The Milbank Q 2005; 83 (03) 457-502
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Miotto R, Wang F, Wang S, Jiang X, Dudley JT. Deep learning for healthcare: review, opportunities and challenges. Brief Bioinform 2018; Nov 27 19 (06) 1236-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Xiao C, Choi E, Sun J. Opportunities and challenges in developing deep learning models using electronic health records data: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (10) 1419-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Powles J, Hodson H. Google DeepMind and healthcare in an age of algorithms. Health Technol (Berl) 2017; 7 (04) 351-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Silver D, Huang A, Maddison CJ, Guez A, Sifre L, van den Driessche G. et al. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 2016; 529: 484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 The LJL. Artificial intelligence in health care: within touching distance. 2018 390. (10114) 2739
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Abràmoff MD, Lavin PT, Birch M, Shah N, Folk JC. Pivotal trial of an autonomous AI-based diagnostic system for detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care offices. NPJ Digit Med 2018; 1 (01) 39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gulshan V, Peng L, Coram M, Stumpe MC, Wu D, Narayanaswamy A. et al. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA 2016; 316 (22) 2402-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Keane PA, Topol EJ. With an eye to AI and autonomous diagnosis. NPJ Digi Med 2018; 1 (01) 40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Stead WW. Clinical implications and challenges of artificial intelligence and deep learning. JAMA 2018; 320 (11) 1107-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Char DS, Shah NH, Magnus D. Implementing Machine Learning in Health Care — Addressing Ethical Challenges. N Engl J Med 2018; 378 (11) 981-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sullivan HR, Schweikart SJ. Are Current Tort Liability Doctrines Adequate for Addressing Injury Caused by AI?. AMA J Ethics 2019; 21 (02) 160-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA 2001
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Alanazi HO, Abdullah AH, Qureshi KN. A Critical Review for Developing Accurate and Dynamic Predictive Models Using Machine Learning Methods in Medicine and Health Care. J Med Syst 2017; 41 (04) 69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sullivan K, ElMolla A, Squires B, Luke S. editors. Unlearning from demonstration. Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ashraf A, Khan S, Bhagwat N, Chakravarty M, Taati B. Learning to Unlearn: Building Immunity to Dataset Bias in Medical Imaging Studies. arXiv preprint arXiv:181201716 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Blease C, Bernstein MH, Gaab J, Kaptchuk TJ, Kossowsky J, Mandl KD. et al. Computerization and the future of primary care: A survey of general practitioners in the UK. PloS One 2018; 13 (12) e0207418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar