Search

Objective:. To determine whether certain patients are vulnerable to errant triage decisions immediately after major surgery and whether there are unique sociodemographic phenotypes within overtriaged and undertriaged cohorts. Background:. In a fair system, overtriage of low-acuity patients to intensive care units (ICUs) and undertriage of high-acuity patients to general wards would affect all sociodemographic subgroups equally. Methods:. This multicenter, longitudinal cohort study of hospital admissions immediately after major surgery compared hospital mortality and value of care (risk-adjusted mortality/total costs) across 4 cohorts: overtriage (N = 660), risk-matched overtriage controls admitted to general wards (N = 3077), undertriage (N = 2335), and risk-matched undertriage controls admitted to ICUs (N = 4774). K-means clustering identified sociodemographic phenotypes within overtriage and undertriage cohorts. Results:. Compared with controls, overtriaged admissions had a predominance of male patients (56.2% vs 43.1%, P < 0.001) and commercial insurance (6.4% vs 2.5%, P < 0.001); undertriaged admissions had a predominance of Black patients (28.4% vs 24.4%, P < 0.001) and greater socioeconomic deprivation. Overtriage was associated with increased total direct costs [$16.2K ($11.4K–$23.5K) vs $14.1K ($9.1K–$20.7K), P < 0.001] and low value of care; undertriage was associated with increased hospital mortality (1.5% vs 0.7%, P = 0.002) and hospice care (2.2% vs 0.6%, P < 0.001) and low value of care. Unique sociodemographic phenotypes within both overtriage and undertriage cohorts had similar outcomes and value of care, suggesting that triage decisions, rather than patient characteristics, drive outcomes and value of care. Conclusions:. Postoperative triage decisions should ensure equality across sociodemographic groups by anchoring triage decisions to objective patient acuity assessments, circumventing cognitive shortcuts and mitigating bias.

The degree to which artificial intelligence healthcare research is informed by data and stakeholders from community settings has not been previously described. As communities are the principal location of healthcare delivery, engaging them could represent an important opportunity to improve scientific quality. This scoping review systematically maps what is known and unknown about community-engaged artificial intelligence research and identifies opportunities to optimize the generalizability of these applications through involvement of community stakeholders and data throughout model development, validation, and implementation. Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were searched for articles describing artificial intelligence or machine learning healthcare applications with community involvement in model development, validation, or implementation. Model architecture and performance, the nature of community engagement, and barriers or facilitators to community engagement were reported according to PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Of approximately 10,880 articles describing artificial intelligence healthcare applications, 21 (0.2%) described community involvement. All articles derived data from community settings, most commonly by leveraging existing datasets and sources that included community subjects, and often bolstered by internet-based data acquisition and subject recruitment. Only one article described inclusion of community stakeholders in designing an application-a natural language processing model that detected cases of likely child abuse with 90% accuracy using harmonized electronic health record notes from both hospital and community practice settings. The primary barrier to including community-derived data was small sample sizes, which may have affected 11 of the 21 studies (53%), introducing substantial risk for overfitting that threatens generalizability. Community engagement in artificial intelligence healthcare application development, validation, or implementation is rare. As healthcare delivery occurs primarily in community settings, investigators should consider engaging community stakeholders in user-centered design, usability, and clinical implementation studies to optimize generalizability.