Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Decision-making for ICU admission: is there a place for AI? Exploring and understanding meaning, experiences, and perspectives
0
Zitationen
3
Autoren
2026
Jahr
Abstract
Intensive care unit (ICU) admission (or refusal) decisions are intricate, relying on the assessment of patient benefit by the intensivist, sole decision-maker, without clear guidelines. As artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly develops predictive applications in healthcare, it could serve as a valuable forecasting tool to aid intensivist decision-making. This study aimed to explore whether intensivists are in demand of an “intelligent” decision-support tool for admissions and, if so, their specific expectations. A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted. Ten French intensivists were interviewed between February and May 2024 and their contributions were analyzed using grounded theory method. Participants varied in experience (1–35 years), region of practice (hyper-urbanized, n = 5, or not) and familiarity with AI (n = 4). Nine and a half hours of interviews revealed that the ICU admission process is a complex undertaking, depending on many criteria and often involving unconventional decision pathways. Intensivists’ decision-making was inherently subjective, deeply tied to moral values aiming to preserve their medical integrity, though sometimes manifesting as biases that result in unfairness. Participants frequently voiced discomfort with the uncertainty in “grey areas”, that is to say poorly documented and non-extreme situations. While intensivists expected AI to counteract their biases and augment their knowledge, they also feared a loss of the humanity in decision-making to the expense of the technical element. Exploring experiences of intensivists regarding ICU admission revealed that the decision is less a matter of protocol than of nuanced, subjective assessment. AI likely has a role in supporting ICU admission or refusal decisions, provided its limitations as a purely informative statistical tool are acknowledged.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study
2020 · 29.044 Zit.
The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)
2016 · 27.288 Zit.
APACHE II
1985 · 13.592 Zit.
Definitions for Sepsis and Organ Failure and Guidelines for the Use of Innovative Therapies in Sepsis
1992 · 13.180 Zit.
The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure
1996 · 11.501 Zit.
Autoren
Institutionen
- Inserm(FR)
- Université Paris Cité(FR)
- Sorbonne Université(FR)
- Sorbonne Paris Cité(FR)
- Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers(FR)
- Centre Val de Loire(FR)
- Université de Tours(FR)
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours(FR)
- Clinical Investigation Center Plurithematic Tours(FR)
- Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades(FR)
- Institut Necker Enfants Malades(FR)
- Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris(FR)