Background The rhetoric surrounding clinical artificial intelligence (AI) often exaggerates its effect on real-world care. Limited understanding of the factors that influence its implementation can perpetuate this. Objective In this qualitative systematic review, we aimed to identify key stakeholders, consolidate their perspectives on clinical AI implementation, and characterize the evidence gaps that future qualitative research should target. Methods Ovid-MEDLINE, EBSCO-CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, Science Citation Index-Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for primary qualitative studies on individuals’ perspectives on any application of clinical AI worldwide (January 2014-April 2021). The definition of clinical AI includes both rule-based and machine learning–enabled or non–rule-based decision support tools. The language of the reports was not an exclusion criterion. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, and full-text screening with a third arbiter of disagreement. Two reviewers assigned the Joanna Briggs Institute 10-point checklist for qualitative research scores for each study. A single reviewer extracted free-text data relevant to clinical AI implementation, noting the stakeholders contributing to each excerpt. The best-fit framework synthesis used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. To validate the data and improve accessibility, coauthors representing each emergent stakeholder group codeveloped summaries of the factors most relevant to their respective groups. Results The initial search yielded 4437 deduplicated articles, with 111 (2.5%) eligible for inclusion (median Joanna Briggs Institute 10-point checklist for qualitative research score, 8/10). Five distinct stakeholder groups emerged from the data: health care professionals (HCPs), patients, carers and other members of the public, developers, health care managers and leaders, and regulators or policy makers, contributing 1204 (70%), 196 (11.4%), 133 (7.7%), 129 (7.5%), and 59 (3.4%) of 1721 eligible excerpts, respectively. All stakeholder groups independently identified a breadth of implementation factors, with each producing data that were mapped between 17 and 24 of the 27 adapted Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability subdomains. Most of the factors that stakeholders found influential in the implementation of rule-based clinical AI also applied to non–rule-based clinical AI, with the exception of intellectual property, regulation, and sociocultural attitudes. Conclusions Clinical AI implementation is influenced by many interdependent factors, which are in turn influenced by at least 5 distinct stakeholder groups. This implies that effective research and practice of clinical AI implementation should consider multiple stakeholder perspectives. The current underrepresentation of perspectives from stakeholders other than HCPs in the literature may limit the anticipation and management of the factors that influence successful clinical AI implementation. Future research should not only widen the representation of tools and contexts in qualitative research but also specifically investigate the perspectives of all stakeholder HCPs and emerging aspects of non–rule-based clinical AI implementation. Trial Registration PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42021256005; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=256005 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/33145

In aortic root aneurysms, the challenge of a valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) procedure is to ensure durable aortic valve function without reintervention. Although the Bentall procedure defers the durability of valve function to the prosthesis, short- and long-term complications tend to be higher. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of VSRR and Bentall procedures in patients with aortic root aneurysms. A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed regarding the outcomes of the Bentall procedure compared with those of VSRR from the inception of the 2 procedures until July 2018. Studies with short- and long-term comparative data were included. An initial search yielded 9517 titles. Thirty-four studies were finally included for meta-analysis (all retrospective, non-randomized), comprising 7313 patients (2944 valve-sparing and 4369 Bentall procedures) with no evidence of publication bias. Operative mortality was found to be significantly lower in the VSRR group [odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37–0.70; P < 0.001] despite overall higher cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times. The 5-year survival rate was also more favourable in the VSRR group (OR 1.93 95% CI 1.15–3.23; P < 0.05). Significantly lower rates of cerebral thromboembolism (OR 0.668, 95% CI 0.477–0.935; P = 0.019) and heart block (OR 0.386, 95% CI 0.195–0.767; P = 0.007) were also found after VSRR. There was no significant difference in rates of reoperation between the groups at long-term follow-up (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.75–2.33; P = 0.336). Meta-regression of patient and operative covariates yielded no influence on the main outcomes (P > 0.05). These findings suggest that VSRR is an appropriate and potentially better treatment option for a root aneurysm when the aortic valve is repairable.

ObjectiveThere is an ongoing challenge of effective integration between primary and social care in the United Kingdom; current systems have led to fragmentation of services preventing holistic patient-centred care for vulnerable populations. To improve clinical outcomes and achieve financial efficiencies, the barriers to integration need to be identified and addressed. This study aims to explore the unique perspectives of frontline staff (general practitioners and practice managers) towards these barriers to integration.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews and thematic analysis to obtain results.SettingGeneral practices within London.Participants18 general practitioners (GPs) and 7 practice managers (PMs) based in London with experience of working with social care.ResultsThe study identified three overarching themes where frontline staff believed problems exist: accessing social services, interprofessional relationships and infrastructure. Issues with contacting staff from other sectors creates delays in referrals for patient care and perpetuates existing logistical challenges. Likewise, professionals noted a hostile working culture between sectors that has resulted in silo working mentalities. In addition to staff being overworked as well as often inefficient multidisciplinary team meetings, poor relationships across sectors cause a diffusion of responsibility, impacting the speed with which patient requests are responded to. Furthermore, participants identified that a lack of interoperability between information systems, lack of pooled budgets and misaligned incentives between managerial staff compound the infrastructural divide between both sectors.ConclusionIn this study, primary care staff identify intangible barriers to integration such as poor interprofessional relationships, in addition to more well-described structural issues such as insufficient funding and difficulty accessing social care. Participants believe that educating the next generation of medical professionals may lead to the development of collaborative, instead of siloed, working cultures and that change is needed at both an interpersonal and institutional level to successfully integrate care.

No abstract

BACKGROUND:To evaluate the influence of age on the clinical characteristics of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RRD). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively collected dataset. Data regarding adult patients (aged 16-100 years) who had undergone primary RRD repair, were extracted from two online databases. Baseline demographics, preoperative clinical characteristics and surgical management details were collected. [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] ≥80) were compared using univariate analysis, with multivariate testing for interaction of age with sex, laterality and pseudophakia. RESULTS: In total, 8,133 eyes were analysed, of which the majority (59%) were in the 50-69 age-range peaking at 60, with a male predominance (64%). Myopia was significantly more frequent in patients aged <50 years. The presence of posterior vitreous detachment increased up to 50 years, then remained >95%. Foveal involvement, grade C proliferative vitreoretinopathy, total RD and greater RD extent were more common and progressively increased after 60 years, with worsening visual acuity. Isolated superior RRDs became more prevalent with age reaching a plateau in the age-range 50-69, before reducing again; conversely, isolated inferior RRDs were commoner in those <30, with a minimum in the 70-79 age-range. The incidence of fellow-eye RRD decreased linearly with age. CONCLUSIONS: Age appeared a key variable in RRD phenotype influencing a wide range of RRD characteristics. The higher incidence of myopia, PVD absent and bilateral RRD in patients <40 years and the significant phenotypical differences in the under 40 and over 50 age-groups highlight that there are several discrete forms of RRD.