Understanding the Debate on AI in Electronic Health Records
Technology
5
Beiträge
4
Kommentatoren
60
Aufrufe
-
Healthcare systems are increasingly integrating the use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to store and manage patient health information and history. As hospitals adopt the new technology, the use of AI to manage these datasets and identify patterns for treatment plans is also on the rise, but not without debate.
Supporters of AI in EHRs argue that AI improves efficiency in diagnostic accuracy, reduces inequities, and reduces physician burnout. However, critics raise concerns over privacy of patients, informed consent, and data bias against marginalized communities. As bills such as H.R. 238 increase the clinical authority of AI, it is important to have discussions surrounding the ethical, practical, and legal implications of AI’s future role in healthcare.
I’d love to hear what this community thinks. Should AI be implemented with EHRs? Or do you think the concerns surrounding patient outcomes and privacy outweigh the benefits?
-
Healthcare systems are increasingly integrating the use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to store and manage patient health information and history. As hospitals adopt the new technology, the use of AI to manage these datasets and identify patterns for treatment plans is also on the rise, but not without debate.
Supporters of AI in EHRs argue that AI improves efficiency in diagnostic accuracy, reduces inequities, and reduces physician burnout. However, critics raise concerns over privacy of patients, informed consent, and data bias against marginalized communities. As bills such as H.R. 238 increase the clinical authority of AI, it is important to have discussions surrounding the ethical, practical, and legal implications of AI’s future role in healthcare.
I’d love to hear what this community thinks. Should AI be implemented with EHRs? Or do you think the concerns surrounding patient outcomes and privacy outweigh the benefits?
I mean theoretically things could be anonymized for the AI, with only the charts with identifiers present, I'd imagine assuming the AI itself stays locked into the EHR system and isn't say outsourced to one of the big AI firms. With those conditions it's, roughly the same privacy as the existance of EHR in general.
As far as practical/legal/ethical, that comes down to how they market it to doctors. Personally I think it could be a useful tool for a doctor to "second opinion" himself. IE reach his own conclusion first, then hit the AI, see if it noticed something he missed. Though the obvious fear is of course going to be lazy or rushed doctors, working in a hospital that's pushing them to see the most patients possible in an hour, rewarding the doctors that walk in, hand the patient their AI diagnosis, and move into the next room. Which... well in modern America we all know this is what's going to be pushed.
The tools have amazing potential when used appropriately.... but for profit healthcare has all the wrong incentives, and they will see this as a tool to magnify them.
-
Healthcare systems are increasingly integrating the use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to store and manage patient health information and history. As hospitals adopt the new technology, the use of AI to manage these datasets and identify patterns for treatment plans is also on the rise, but not without debate.
Supporters of AI in EHRs argue that AI improves efficiency in diagnostic accuracy, reduces inequities, and reduces physician burnout. However, critics raise concerns over privacy of patients, informed consent, and data bias against marginalized communities. As bills such as H.R. 238 increase the clinical authority of AI, it is important to have discussions surrounding the ethical, practical, and legal implications of AI’s future role in healthcare.
I’d love to hear what this community thinks. Should AI be implemented with EHRs? Or do you think the concerns surrounding patient outcomes and privacy outweigh the benefits?
There's no debate. They're my fucking records. Don't fucking use them
-
I mean theoretically things could be anonymized for the AI, with only the charts with identifiers present, I'd imagine assuming the AI itself stays locked into the EHR system and isn't say outsourced to one of the big AI firms. With those conditions it's, roughly the same privacy as the existance of EHR in general.
As far as practical/legal/ethical, that comes down to how they market it to doctors. Personally I think it could be a useful tool for a doctor to "second opinion" himself. IE reach his own conclusion first, then hit the AI, see if it noticed something he missed. Though the obvious fear is of course going to be lazy or rushed doctors, working in a hospital that's pushing them to see the most patients possible in an hour, rewarding the doctors that walk in, hand the patient their AI diagnosis, and move into the next room. Which... well in modern America we all know this is what's going to be pushed.
The tools have amazing potential when used appropriately.... but for profit healthcare has all the wrong incentives, and they will see this as a tool to magnify them.
Think of all the data breaches of big insurance and clearinghouses. That's definitely going to be an AI nightmare.
-
Think of all the data breaches of big insurance and clearinghouses. That's definitely going to be an AI nightmare.
Well yeah exactly why I said "the same risk". ideally it's going to be in the same systems... and assuming no one is stupid enough (or the laws don't let them) attach it to the publicly accessible forms of existing AIs It's not a new additional risk, just the same one. (though those assumptions are largely there own risks.
-
-
Mole or cancer? The algorithm that gets one in three melanomas wrong and erases patients with dark skin
Technology
1
-
-
-
-
Meta and Yandex are de-anonymizing Android users’ web browsing identifiers - Ars Technica
Technology
1
-
Microsoft Gives European Union Users More Control: Uninstall Edge, Store, and Say Goodbye to Bing Prompts
Technology
1
-
