OBJECTIVES: Inpatients with language barriers and complex medical needs suffer disparities in quality of care, safety, and health outcomes. Although in-person interpreters are particularly beneficial for these patients, they are underused. We plan to use machine learning predictive analytics to reliably identify patients with language barriers and complex medical needs to prioritize them for in-person interpreters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative study used stakeholder engagement through semi-structured interviews to understand the perceived risks and benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) in this domain. Stakeholders included clinicians, interpreters, and personnel involved in caring for these patients or for organizing interpreters. Data were coded and analyzed using NVIVO software. RESULTS: We completed 49 interviews. Key perceived risks included concerns about transparency, accuracy, redundancy, privacy, perceived stigmatization among patients, alert fatigue, and supply-demand issues. Key perceived benefits included increased awareness of in-person interpreters, improved standard of care and prioritization for interpreter utilization; a streamlined process for accessing interpreters, empowered clinicians, and potential to overcome clinician bias. DISCUSSION: This is the first study that elicits stakeholder perspectives on the use of AI with the goal of improved clinical care for patients with language barriers. Perceived benefits and risks related to the use of AI in this domain, overlapped with known hazards and values of AI but some benefits were unique for addressing challenges with providing interpreter services to patients with language barriers. CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence to identify and prioritize patients for interpreter services has the potential to improve standard of care and address healthcare disparities among patients with language barriers.

How to deliver best care in various clinical settings remains a vexing problem. All pertinent healthcare-related questions have not, cannot, and will not be addressable with costly time- and resource-consuming controlled clinical trials. At present, evidence-based guidelines can address only a small fraction of the types of care that clinicians deliver. Furthermore, underserved areas rarely can access state-of-the-art evidence-based guidelines in real-time, and often lack the wherewithal to implement advanced guidelines. Care providers in such settings frequently do not have sufficient training to undertake advanced guideline implementation. Nevertheless, in advanced modern healthcare delivery environments, use of eActions (validated clinical decision support systems) could help overcome the cognitive limitations of overburdened clinicians. Widespread use of eActions will require surmounting current healthcare technical and cultural barriers and installing clinical evidence/data curation systems. The authors expect that increased numbers of evidence-based guidelines will result from future comparative effectiveness clinical research carried out during routine healthcare delivery within learning healthcare systems.

Clinical decision-making is based on knowledge, expertise, and authority, with clinicians approving almost every intervention-the starting point for delivery of "All the right care, but only the right care," an unachieved healthcare quality improvement goal. Unaided clinicians suffer from human cognitive limitations and biases when decisions are based only on their training, expertise, and experience. Electronic health records (EHRs) could improve healthcare with robust decision-support tools that reduce unwarranted variation of clinician decisions and actions. Current EHRs, focused on results review, documentation, and accounting, are awkward, time-consuming, and contribute to clinician stress and burnout. Decision-support tools could reduce clinician burden and enable replicable clinician decisions and actions that personalize patient care. Most current clinical decision-support tools or aids lack detail and neither reduce burden nor enable replicable actions. Clinicians must provide subjective interpretation and missing logic, thus introducing personal biases and mindless, unwarranted, variation from evidence-based practice. Replicability occurs when different clinicians, with the same patient information and context, come to the same decision and action. We propose a feasible subset of therapeutic decision-support tools based on credible clinical outcome evidence: computer protocols leading to replicable clinician actions (eActions). eActions enable different clinicians to make consistent decisions and actions when faced with the same patient input data. eActions embrace good everyday decision-making informed by evidence, experience, EHR data, and individual patient status. eActions can reduce unwarranted variation, increase quality of clinical care and research, reduce EHR noise, and could enable a learning healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE: Access to palliative care (PC) is important for many patients with uncontrolled symptom burden from serious or complex illness. However, many patients who could benefit from PC do not receive it early enough or at all. We sought to address this problem by building a predictive model into a comprehensive clinical framework with the aims to (i) identify in-hospital patients likely to benefit from a PC consult, and (ii) intervene on such patients by contacting their care team. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic health record data for 68 349 inpatient encounters in 2017 at a large hospital were used to train a model to predict the need for PC consult. This model was published as a web service, connected to institutional data pipelines, and consumed by a downstream display application monitored by the PC team. For those patients that the PC team deems appropriate, a team member then contacts the patient's corresponding care team. RESULTS: Training performance AUC based on a 20% holdout validation set was 0.90. The most influential variables were previous palliative care, hospital unit, Albumin, Troponin, and metastatic cancer. The model has been successfully integrated into the clinical workflow making real-time predictions on hundreds of patients per day. The model had an "in-production" AUC of 0.91. A clinical trial is currently underway to assess the effect on clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning model can effectively predict the need for an inpatient PC consult and has been successfully integrated into practice to refer new patients to PC.

In Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC), medics perform Role 1 care for battlefield casualties at point of injury by stabilizing them and transporting them to field care facilities such as a Battalion Aid Station (Role 2) or Field Hospital (Role 3) where clinicians provide critical care. Care provider experience and ability vary, and training in the field can help to improve recall and performance of infrequently used critical care skills. This becomes more necessary during Prolonged Field Care (PFC) when evacuation is not immediately available and more complex treatment may be required. Our Trauma Triage Treatment and Training Decision Support (4TDS) project has developed a decision support system (DSS) for Roles 1 and 2. As an application on a Android smart phone and tablet, 4TDS includes training scenarios in skills such as shock identification and management. 4TDS pairs with various vital signs sensors that can stream data for a machine learning algorithm that can detect the probability of shock in a casualty. A "silent test" is comparing algorithm performance with actual clinical diagnoses at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Usability assessment in an austere field setting will enable us to determine medic and clinician acceptance of 4TDS and how well it supports their decision making. Faster, more accurate decisions can improve TCCC patient care under conditions in which delays can increase morbidity and mortality.

Combat medics care for battlefield casualties at point of injury (PoI), and stabilize and transport them to field care facilities. Casualty care requires complex decisions under austere and frequently dangerous conditions. Future operations are not expected to have immediate evacuation available, requiring more complex care and potential for complications including circulatory shock, which is a life-threatening state that can lead to organ failure and death if not detected and treated. We report on a project to develop decision support for combat medics (Role 1) and Battalion Aid Station/Field Hospital clinicians (Role 2) by combining resources of two proven intensive care unit (ICU) decision support systems. Machine learning algorithms are under development that will be used to detect the probability of shock in a casualty. Algorithms will be compared with actual clinical decisions in a “silent test.” A parallel effort is developing a software program for use with a vital signs sensor that can be installed on a DoD-approved version of the Samsung smart phone and tablet, then evaluated in the field by medics and clinicians. Faster, more accurate decisions can improve care for trauma patients, in circumstances where delays can increase morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Despite increased use of electronic health records (EHRs), the clinical impact of system downtime is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study evaluated the impact of EHR downtime episodes lasting more than 60 minutes over a 6-year study period. Patients age 18 years or older who underwent surgical procedures at least 60 minutes in duration with an inpatient stay exceeding 24 hours within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Out of 4115 patients exposed to 1 of 176 EHR downtime episodes, 4103 patients were matched to an unexposed cohort in a 1:1 ratio. Multivariable regression analysis, as well as trend analysis for effect of duration of downtime on outcomes, was performed. RESULTS: Downtime-exposed patients had operating room duration 1.1 times longer (p < .001) and postoperative length of stay 1.04 times longer (p = .007) compared to unexposed patients. The 30-day mortality rates were similar between these groups (odds ratio 1.26, p > .05). In trend analysis, there was no association between duration of downtime with respect to evaluated outcomes, postoperative length of stay, and 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: EHR downtime had no impact on 30-day mortality. Potential associations for increased postoperative length of stay and duration of time spent in the operating room were observed among downtime-exposed patients. No trend effect was observed with respect to duration of downtime and postoperative length of stay and 30-day mortality rates.