Coexisting multiple health conditions is common among older people, a population that is increasing globally. The potential for polypharmacy, adverse events, drug interactions and development of additional health conditions complicates prescribing decisions for these patients. Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated decision-making tools may help guide clinical decisions in the context of multiple health conditions, by determining which of the multiple medication options is best. This study aims to explore the perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on the use of AI in the management of multiple health conditions.
A qualitative study will be conducted using semistructured interviews. Adults (≥18 years) with multiple health conditions living in the West Midlands of England and HCPs with experience in caring for patients with multiple health conditions will be eligible and purposively sampled. Patients will be identified from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum; CPRD will contact general practitioners who will in turn, send a letter to patients inviting them to take part. Eligible HCPs will be recruited through British HCP bodies and known contacts. Up to 30 patients and 30 HCPs will be recruited, until data saturation is achieved. Interviews will be in-person or virtual, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The topic guide is designed to explore participants’ attitudes towards AI-informed clinical decision-making to augment clinician-directed decision-making, the perceived advantages and disadvantages of both methods and attitudes towards risk management. Case vignettes comprising a common decision pathway for patients with multiple health conditions will be presented during each interview to invite participants’ opinions on how their experiences compare. Data will be analysed thematically using the Framework Method.
This study has been approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 22/SC/0210). Written informed consent or verbal consent will be obtained prior to each interview. The findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and lay summaries.
To explore the satisfaction and experiences of women and staff with the BSOTS in an Australian hospital.
Cross-sectional descriptive survey.
Surveys were distributed to women and staff between February and May 2022. Survey questions reflected satisfaction with triage and provision of care under the BSOTS system (for women) and confidence in using the BSOTS system and its impact on triage-related care (for staff). Survey data were summarized using descriptive statistics, and qualitative responses were analysed using content analysis.
There were 50 women and 40 staff (midwives and doctors) survey respondents. Most women were satisfied with triage wait times, the verbal information they received and the time it took for them to receive care. Nearly all midwife participants indicated they had high knowledge and confidence in using the BSOTS. Most staff indicated that the BSOTS supported the accurate assessment of women and had benefits for women, staff and the hospital.
The findings showed that women and staff were satisfied with receiving and providing care in a maternity triage setting under the BSOTS system.
Implementing standardized maternity triage approaches such as the BSOTS in health settings delivering care to pregnant women is recommended for improving flow of care and perceptions of care quality by women.
Quality of maternity triage processes is likely to impact the satisfaction of women attending services and the staff providing care. The BSOTS was shown to improve maternity triage processes and was associated with satisfaction of women and staff. Maternity settings can benefit from implementing triage approaches such as the BSOTS as it standardizes and justifies the care provided to women. This is likely to result in satisfaction of women and staff engaged in maternity triage and improve the birth outcomes of women and babies.
The reporting of this paper has followed SQUIRE guidelines.
Women engaged with maternity services were participants in the study but did not contribute to the design, conduct or publication of the study.