Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38831298›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Understanding the integration of artificial intelligence in healthcare organisations and systems through the NASSS framework: a qualitative study in a leading Canadian academic centre.

Hassane Alami, Pascale Lehoux, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Sara E Shaw, Richard Fleet, Jean-Paul Fortin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hassane AlamiDepartment of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, P.O. Box 6128, Branch Centre-Ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada. hassane.alami@umontreal.ca.
Pascale LehouxDepartment of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, P.O. Box 6128, Branch Centre-Ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada.
Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sara E ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Richard FleetFaculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Jean-Paul FortinFaculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) technologies are expected to "revolutionise" healthcare. However, despite their promises, their integration within healthcare organisations and systems remains limited. The objective of this study is to explore and understand the systemic challenges and implications of their integration in a leading Canadian academic hospital.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 stakeholders concerned by the integration of a large set of AI technologies within the organisation (e.g., managers, clinicians, researchers, patients, technology providers). Data were collected and analysed using the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) framework.

resultsAmong enabling factors and conditions, our findings highlight: a supportive organisational culture and leadership leading to a coherent organisational innovation narrative; mutual trust and transparent communication between senior management and frontline teams; the presence of champions, translators, and boundary spanners for AI able to build bridges and trust; and the capacity to attract technical and clinical talents and expertise. Constraints and barriers include: contrasting definitions of the value of AI technologies and ways to measure such value; lack of real-life and context-based evidence; varying patients' digital and health literacy capacities; misalignments between organisational dynamics, clinical and administrative processes, infrastructures, and AI technologies; lack of funding mechanisms covering the implementation, adaptation, and expertise required; challenges arising from practice change, new expertise development, and professional identities; lack of official professional, reimbursement, and insurance guidelines; lack of pre- and post-market approval legal and governance frameworks; diversity of the business and financing models for AI technologies; and misalignments between investors' priorities and the needs and expectations of healthcare organisations and systems.

conclusionThanks to the multidimensional NASSS framework, this study provides original insights and a detailed learning base for analysing AI technologies in healthcare from a thorough socio-technical perspective. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the complexity characterising healthcare organisations and systems in current efforts to introduce AI technologies within clinical routines. This study adds to the existing literature and can inform decision-making towards a judicious, responsible, and sustainable integration of these technologies in healthcare organisations and systems.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceQualitative ResearchAcademic Medical CentersCanadaDelivery of Health CareHumansInterviews as TopicLeadershipOrganizational CultureOrganizational InnovationArtificial intelligenceBusiness modelsComplexityDigital healthEvaluationHealth organisationHealth systemImplementationInnovation adoptionScale-up

Identifiers

PMID38831298
PMCPMC11149257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.