Using a simulation centre to evaluate preliminary acceptability and impact of an artificial intelligence-powered clinical decision support system for depression treatment on the physician–patient interaction. Issue 1 (6th January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Benrimoh, David; Tanguay-Sela, Myriam; Perlman, Kelly; Israel, Sonia; Mehltretter, Joseph; Armstrong, Caitrin; Fratila, Robert; Parikh, Sagar V.; Karp, Jordan F.; Heller, Katherine; Vahia, Ipsit V.; Blumberger, Daniel M.; Karama, Sherif; Vigod, Simone N.; Myhr, Gail; Martins, Ruben; Rollins, Colleen; Popescu, Christina; Lundrigan, Eryn; Snook, Emily; Wakid, Marina; Williams, Jérôme; Soufi, Ghassen; Perez, Tamara; Tunteng, Jingla-Fri; Rosenfeld, Katherine; Miresco, Marc; Turecki, Gustavo; Gomez Cardona, Liliana; Linnaranta, Outi; Margolese, Howard C.;
• Is Part Of: BJPsych open. Volume 7:Issue 1(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-01-06
• Subjects: Primary care, -- out-patient treatment, -- depressive disorders, -- artificial intelligence, -- simulation centre; Psychiatry -- Periodicals; Mental health -- Periodicals; 616.89005
• DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2020.127
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2056-4724

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Recently, artificial intelligence-powered devices have been put forward as potentially powerful tools for the improvement of mental healthcare. An important question is how these devices impact the physician-patient interaction. Aims: Aifred is an artificial intelligence-powered clinical decision support system (CDSS) for the treatment of major depression. Here, we explore the use of a simulation centre environment in evaluating the usability of Aifred, particularly its impact on the physician–patient interaction. Method: Twenty psychiatry and family medicine attending staff and residents were recruited to complete a 2.5-h study at a clinical interaction simulation centre with standardised patients. Each physician had the option of using the CDSS to inform their treatment choice in three 10-min clinical scenarios with standardised patients portraying mild, moderate and severe episodes of major depression. Feasibility and acceptability data were collected through self-report questionnaires, scenario observations, interviews and standardised patient feedback. Results: All 20 participants completed the study. Initial results indicate that the tool was acceptable to clinicians and feasible for use during clinical encounters. Clinicians indicated a willingness to use the tool in real clinical practice, a significant degree of trust in the system's predictions to assist with treatment selection, and reported that the tool helped increase patient understanding of and trust in treatment. The simulation environment allowed for the evaluation of the tool's impact on the physician–patient interaction. Conclusions: The simulation centre allowed for direct observations of clinician use and impact of the tool on the clinician–patient interaction before clinical studies. It may therefore offer a useful and important environment in the early testing of new technological tools. The present results will inform further tool development and clinician training materials.