OBJECTIVE: We examined the influence of 4 different risk information formats on inpatient nurses' preferences and decisions with an acute clinical deterioration decision-support system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comparative usability evaluation in which participants provided responses to multiple user interface options in a simulated setting. We collected qualitative data using think aloud methods. We collected quantitative data by asking participants which action they would perform after each time point in 3 different patient scenarios. RESULTS: More participants (n = 6) preferred the probability format over relative risk ratios (n = 2), absolute differences (n = 2), and number of persons out of 100 (n = 0). Participants liked average lines, having a trend graph to supplement the risk estimate, and consistent colors between trend graphs and possible actions. Participants did not like too much text information or the presence of confidence intervals. From a decision-making perspective, use of the probability format was associated with greater concordance in actions taken by participants compared to the other 3 risk information formats. DISCUSSION: By focusing on nurses' preferences and decisions with several risk information display formats and collecting both qualitative and quantitative data, we have provided meaningful insights for the design of clinical decision-support systems containing complex quantitative information. CONCLUSION: This study adds to our knowledge of presenting risk information to nurses within clinical decision-support systems. We encourage those developing risk-based systems for inpatient nurses to consider expressing risk in a probability format and include a graph (with average line) to display the patient's recent trends.

Use of artificial intelligence in healthcare, such as machine learning-based predictive algorithms, holds promise for advancing outcomes, but few systems are used in routine clinical practice. Trust has been cited as an important challenge to meaningful use of artificial intelligence in clinical practice. Artificial intelligence systems often involve automating cognitively challenging tasks. Therefore, previous literature on trust in automation may hold important lessons for artificial intelligence applications in healthcare. In this perspective, we argue that informatics should take lessons from literature on trust in automation such that the goal should be to foster appropriate trust in artificial intelligence based on the purpose of the tool, its process for making recommendations, and its performance in the given context. We adapt a conceptual model to support this argument and present recommendations for future work.