OBJECTIVES: We sought to (1) characterize the process of diagnosing pneumonia in an emergency department (ED) and (2) examine clinician reactions to a clinician-facing diagnostic discordance feedback tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a diagnostic feedback tool, using electronic health record data from ED clinicians' patients to establish concordance or discordance between ED diagnosis, radiology reports, and hospital discharge diagnosis for pneumonia. We conducted semistructured interviews with 11 ED clinicians about pneumonia diagnosis and reactions to the feedback tool. We administered surveys measuring individual differences in mindset beliefs, comfort with feedback, and feedback tool usability. We qualitatively analyzed interview transcripts and descriptively analyzed survey data. RESULTS: Thematic results revealed: (1) the diagnostic process for pneumonia in the ED is characterized by diagnostic uncertainty and may be secondary to goals to treat and dispose the patient; (2) clinician diagnostic self-evaluation is a fragmented, inconsistent process of case review and follow-up that a feedback tool could fill; (3) the feedback tool was described favorably, with task and normative feedback harnessing clinician values of high-quality patient care and personal excellence; and (4) strong reactions to diagnostic feedback varied from implicit trust to profound skepticism about the validity of the concordance metric. Survey results suggested a relationship between clinicians' individual differences in learning and failure beliefs, feedback experience, and usability ratings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Clinicians value feedback on pneumonia diagnoses. Our results highlight the importance of feedback about diagnostic performance and suggest directions for considering individual differences in feedback tool design and implementation.

OBJECTIVE: Obtain clinicians' perspectives on early warning scores (EWS) use within context of clinical cases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We developed cases mimicking sepsis situations. De-identified data, synthesized physician notes, and EWS representing deterioration risk were displayed in a simulated EHR for analysis. Twelve clinicians participated in semi-structured interviews to ascertain perspectives across four domains: (1) Familiarity with and understanding of artificial intelligence (AI), prediction models and risk scores; (2) Clinical reasoning processes; (3) Impression and response to EWS; and (4) Interface design. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis revealed clinicians have experience but limited AI and prediction/risk modeling understanding. Case assessments were primarily based on clinical data. EWS went unmentioned during initial case analysis; although when prompted to comment on it, they discussed it in subsequent cases. Clinicians were unsure how to interpret or apply the EWS, and desired evidence on its derivation and validation. Design recommendations centered around EWS display in multi-patient lists for triage, and EWS trends within the patient record. Themes included a "Trust but Verify" approach to AI and early warning information, dichotomy that EWS is helpful for triage yet has disproportional signal-to-high noise ratio, and action driven by clinical judgment, not the EWS. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians were unsure of how to apply EWS, acted on clinical data, desired score composition and validation information, and felt EWS was most useful when embedded in multi-patient views. Systems providing interactive visualization may facilitate EWS transparency and increase confidence in AI-generated information.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted an implementation planning process during the pilot phase of a pragmatic trial, which tests an intervention guided by artificial intelligence (AI) analytics sourced from noninvasive monitoring data in heart failure patients (LINK-HF2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mixed-method analysis was conducted at 2 pilot sites. Interviews were conducted with 12 of 27 enrolled patients and with 13 participating clinicians. iPARIHS constructs were used for interview construction to identify workflow, communication patterns, and clinician's beliefs. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive coding protocols to identify key themes. Behavioral response data from the AI-generated notifications were collected. RESULTS: Clinicians responded to notifications within 24 hours in 95% of instances, with 26.7% resulting in clinical action. Four implementation themes emerged: (1) High anticipatory expectations for reliable patient communications, reduced patient burden, and less proactive provider monitoring. (2) The AI notifications required a differential and tailored balance of trust and action advice related to role. (3) Clinic experience with other home-based programs influenced utilization. (4) Responding to notifications involved significant effort, including electronic health record (EHR) review, patient contact, and consultation with other clinicians. DISCUSSION: Clinician's use of AI data is a function of beliefs regarding the trustworthiness and usefulness of the data, the degree of autonomy in professional roles, and the cognitive effort involved. CONCLUSION: The implementation planning analysis guided development of strategies that addressed communication technology, patient education, and EHR integration to reduce clinician and patient burden in the subsequent main randomized phase of the trial. Our results provide important insights into the unique implications of implementing AI analytics into clinical workflow.

We sought to learn from the experiences of women leaders in informatics by interviewing women in Informatics leadership roles. Participants reported career challenges, how they built confidence, advice to their younger selves, and suggestions for attracting and retaining additional women. Respondents were 16 women in leadership roles in academia (n = 9) and industry (n = 7). We conducted a thematic analysis revealing: (1) careers in informatics are serendipitous and nurtured by supportive communities, (2) challenges in leadership were profoundly related to gender issues, (3) "Big wins" in informatics careers were about making a difference, and (4) women leaders highlighted resilience, excellence, and personal authenticity as important for future women leaders. Sexism is undeniably present, although not all participants reported overt gender barriers. Confidence and authenticity in leadership point to the value offered by individual leaders. The next step is to continue to foster an informatics culture that encourages authenticity across the gender spectrum.