Equity in Using Artificial Intelligence Mortality Predictions to Target Goals of Care Documentation.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of General Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-10 DOI:10.1007/s11606-024-08849-w
Gina M Piscitello, Shari Rogal, Jane Schell, Yael Schenker, Robert M Arnold
{"title":"Equity in Using Artificial Intelligence Mortality Predictions to Target Goals of Care Documentation.","authors":"Gina M Piscitello, Shari Rogal, Jane Schell, Yael Schenker, Robert M Arnold","doi":"10.1007/s11606-024-08849-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are increasingly used to target patients with elevated mortality risk scores for goals-of-care (GOC) conversations.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the association between the presence or absence of AI-generated mortality risk scores with GOC documentation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cross-sectional study at one large academic medical center between July 2021 and December 2022.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Hospitalized adult patients with AI-defined Serious Illness Risk Indicator (SIRI) scores indicating > 30% 90-day mortality risk (defined as \"elevated\" SIRI) or no SIRI scores due to insufficient data.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>A targeted intervention to increase GOC documentation for patients with AI-generated scores predicting elevated risk of mortality.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>Odds ratios comparing GOC documentation for patients with elevated or no SIRI scores with similar severity of illness using propensity score matching and risk-adjusted mixed-effects logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>Among 13,710 patients with elevated (n = 3643, 27%) or no (n = 10,067, 73%) SIRI scores, the median age was 64 years (SD 18). Twenty-five percent were non-White, 18% had Medicaid, 43% were admitted to an intensive care unit, and 11% died during admission. Patients lacking SIRI scores were more likely to be younger (median 60 vs. 72 years, p < 0.0001), be non-White (29% vs. 13%, p < 0.0001), and have Medicaid (22% vs. 9%, p < 0.0001). Patients with elevated versus no SIRI scores were more likely to have GOC documentation in the unmatched (aOR 2.5, p < 0.0001) and propensity-matched cohorts (aOR 2.1, p < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using AI predictions of mortality to target GOC documentation may create differences in documentation prevalence between patients with and without AI mortality prediction scores with similar severity of illness. These finding suggest using AI to target GOC documentation may have the unintended consequence of disadvantaging severely ill patients lacking AI-generated scores from receiving targeted GOC documentation, including patients who are more likely to be non-White and have Medicaid insurance.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"3001-3008"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11576666/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-08849-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are increasingly used to target patients with elevated mortality risk scores for goals-of-care (GOC) conversations.

Objective: To evaluate the association between the presence or absence of AI-generated mortality risk scores with GOC documentation.

Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study at one large academic medical center between July 2021 and December 2022.

Participants: Hospitalized adult patients with AI-defined Serious Illness Risk Indicator (SIRI) scores indicating > 30% 90-day mortality risk (defined as "elevated" SIRI) or no SIRI scores due to insufficient data.

Intervention: A targeted intervention to increase GOC documentation for patients with AI-generated scores predicting elevated risk of mortality.

Main measures: Odds ratios comparing GOC documentation for patients with elevated or no SIRI scores with similar severity of illness using propensity score matching and risk-adjusted mixed-effects logistic regression.

Key results: Among 13,710 patients with elevated (n = 3643, 27%) or no (n = 10,067, 73%) SIRI scores, the median age was 64 years (SD 18). Twenty-five percent were non-White, 18% had Medicaid, 43% were admitted to an intensive care unit, and 11% died during admission. Patients lacking SIRI scores were more likely to be younger (median 60 vs. 72 years, p < 0.0001), be non-White (29% vs. 13%, p < 0.0001), and have Medicaid (22% vs. 9%, p < 0.0001). Patients with elevated versus no SIRI scores were more likely to have GOC documentation in the unmatched (aOR 2.5, p < 0.0001) and propensity-matched cohorts (aOR 2.1, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Using AI predictions of mortality to target GOC documentation may create differences in documentation prevalence between patients with and without AI mortality prediction scores with similar severity of illness. These finding suggest using AI to target GOC documentation may have the unintended consequence of disadvantaging severely ill patients lacking AI-generated scores from receiving targeted GOC documentation, including patients who are more likely to be non-White and have Medicaid insurance.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用人工智能死亡率预测来确定护理文件目标的公平性。
背景:人工智能(AI)算法越来越多地被用于针对死亡率风险评分较高的患者进行护理目标(GOC)对话:评估是否存在人工智能生成的死亡风险评分与 GOC 文件之间的关联:2021 年 7 月至 2022 年 12 月在一家大型学术医疗中心进行的回顾性横断面研究:AI定义的严重疾病风险指标(SIRI)评分显示90天死亡风险>30%(定义为SIRI "升高")或因数据不足而无SIRI评分的成年住院患者:干预措施:采取有针对性的干预措施,为人工智能评分预测死亡风险升高的患者提供更多的 GOC 文件:主要测量指标:使用倾向得分匹配和风险调整混合效应逻辑回归法,比较疾病严重程度相似但SIRI评分升高或没有SIRI评分的患者的GOC记录几率:在 13710 名 SIRI 评分升高(n = 3643,27%)或无 SIRI 评分(n = 10067,73%)的患者中,中位年龄为 64 岁(SD 18)。25%的患者为非白人,18%的患者享受医疗补助,43%的患者入住重症监护病房,11%的患者在入院期间死亡。缺乏 SIRI 评分的患者更有可能更年轻(中位数为 60 岁对 72 岁,P 结论):使用人工智能预测死亡率来进行 GOC 文件记录,可能会在病情严重程度相似但有人工智能死亡率预测分数和没有人工智能死亡率预测分数的患者之间造成文件记录流行率的差异。这些发现表明,使用人工智能来定位 GOC 文件可能会产生意想不到的后果,即缺乏人工智能生成评分的重症患者(包括更有可能是非白人和拥有医疗补助保险的患者)无法获得有针对性的 GOC 文件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.
期刊最新文献
Discussing Weight with Patients in Primary Care in Australia: A Mixed Methods Experimental Study. Association of Observation Stays with Clinical Outcomes and Costs in Medicare: An Instrumental Variable Analysis. The Master Adaptive Clinician Educator: A Framework for Future Educational Leaders in Academic Medicine. Empagliflozin in Diuretic-Refractory Ascites (DRAin-Em): Results of a Single-Center Feasibility Study. Effectiveness of a Novel Global Telemedicine Curriculum for Medical Students.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1