Usability of an artificially intelligence-powered triage platform for adult ophthalmic emergencies: a mixed methods study
Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
There is growing demand for emergency-based eyecare services where the majority of those attending do not require urgent ophthalmic management. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists have recommended upskilling and supporting of allied health professionals to support eyecare delivery, where machine learning algorithms could help. A mixed methods study was conducted to evaluate the usability of an artificial intelligence (AI) powered online triage platform for ophthalmology. The interface, usability, safety and acceptability were investigated using a Think Aloud interview and usability questionnaires. Twenty participants who actively examine patients in ophthalmic triage within a tertiary eye centre or primary care setting completed the interview and questionnaires. 90% or more of participants found the platform easy to use, reflected their triage process and were able to interpret the triage outcome, 85% found it safe to use and 95% felt the processing time was fast. A quarter of clinicians reported that they have experienced some uncertainty when triaging in their career and were unsure of using AI, after this study 95% of clinicians were willing to use the platform in their clinical workflow. This study showed the platform interface was acceptable and usable for clinicians actively working in ophthalmic emergency triage.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Usability of an artificially intelligence-powered triage platform for adult ophthalmic emergencies: a mixed methods study
- Date Crossref
- 15/12/2023
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.