BackgroundConversational assistants, such as Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant, are ubiquitous and are beginning to be used as portals for medical services. However, the potential safety issues of using conversational assistants for medical information by patients and consumers are not understood.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence and nature of the harm that could result from patients or consumers using conversational assistants for medical information.MethodsParticipants were given medical problems to pose to Siri, Alexa, or Google Assistant, and asked to determine an action to take based on information from the system. Assignment of tasks and systems were randomized across participants, and participants queried the conversational assistants in their own words, making as many attempts as needed until they either reported an action to take or gave up. Participant-reported actions for each medical task were rated for patient harm using an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality harm scale.ResultsFifty-four subjects completed the study with a mean age of 42 years (SD 18). Twenty-nine (54%) were female, 31 (57%) Caucasian, and 26 (50%) were college educated. Only 8 (15%) reported using a conversational assistant regularly, while 22 (41%) had never used one, and 24 (44%) had tried one “a few times.“ Forty-four (82%) used computers regularly. Subjects were only able to complete 168 (43%) of their 394 tasks. Of these, 49 (29%) reported actions that could have resulted in some degree of patient harm, including 27 (16%) that could have resulted in death.ConclusionsReliance on conversational assistants for actionable medical information represents a safety risk for patients and consumers. Patients should be cautioned to not use these technologies for answers to medical questions they intend to act on without further consultation from a health care provider.

No abstract

Pharmacists are caring for more individuals of diverse age, gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, sexual orientation, and health beliefs than in previous decades. Not all residents of the United States equally experience long life spans and good health. Health disparities in various cultures have been documented. One critical aspect of reducing health disparities is moving health care providers, staff, administrators, and practices toward increased cultural competence and proficiency. Effective delivery of culturally and linguistically appropriate service in cross-cultural settings is identified as cultural competence. Culture is a dynamic process, with people moving in and out of various cultures throughout their lives. The failure to understand and respect individuals and their cultures could impede pharmaceutical care. Incongruent beliefs and expectations between the patient and pharmacist could lead to misunderstandings, confusion, and ultimately to drug misadventures. Models and frameworks have been developed that provide descriptions of the process by which individuals, practice settings, and organizations can become culturally competent and proficient. This article, the first in a five-part series, presents an overview of issues related to cultural competence in health care with an emphasis on the pharmacy profession. Also provided are definitions for cultural competence and related terms, a brief overview of health disparities and challenges to the common morality, and a discussion of models and frameworks that describe pathways to cultural competence and proficiency.

Objective. Determine the quantitative and qualitative value of a lecture-laboratory course with standardized patients on student communication skills. Methods. A blinded retrospective analysis was conducted on the counseling tapes of 127 students who took a lecture-laboratory course with standardized patients. A Communication Skills Assessment Form (CSAF) was used to evaluate baseline, midpoint and final tapes. Descriptive statistics and repeated measures analysis of variance were used to compare tapes. Students and standardized patients completed written survey instruments evaluating the laboratory at the end of the semester. Results. Students had significant and progressively higher scores on the assessment across baseline, midpoint and final time points (p # 0.001). Students had significantly higher final assessment scores across all subsections than at baseline (p # 0.01). Students and standardized patients were favorable towards the laboratories and made useful recommendations. Conclusions. A lecture-laboratory course with standardized patients had a significant impact on student communication skills across time and was well received by students and standardized patients.

No abstract