hce_cmu
113年
英文
第 48 題
📖 題組：
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform healthcare decision-making but also introduces novel challenges in patient safety. AI-embedded clinical decision support (CDS) can improve diagnosis, including the identification of rare diseases, and offer higher-value treatment options. However, it can also create harm. For example, AI performance may change when applied to different populations, instead of those originally tested, potentially leading to incorrect diagnoses or treatments for certain demographic groups. Additionally, improper training can result in clinicians misusing AI, thus endangering patient safety. Moreover, implementation of new healthcare technology can improve safety but may also increase medical errors. Likewise, traditional decision support systems have resulted in alert fatigue, leading to medical errors. However, medical education has been lacking in training individuals on integrating AI algorithms into medical decisions. Thus, implementation science and quality improvement programs are required to emphasize the importance of developing plans and using simulation to mitigate potential harms. The National Academies of Medicine (NAM) defines patient safety as “the prevention of harm to patients.” Despite two decades of focus, the effectiveness of patient safety efforts remains debated among experts. On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued an executive order on AI, mandating federal agencies to develop standards for AI applications in healthcare. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) created a task force to ensure that AI deployment reduces patient harm and encourages continuous learning. This includes roles for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in software approval, the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) for AI inclusion in electronic health records, and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to ensure AI algorithms not violating civil rights. The requirement for hospitals to ensure patient safety is a condition of participation (CoP) in Medicare and Medicaid, as by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act authorizes the Secretary to impose additional requirements if necessary for health and safety. This involves investigating harms to determine if policies and procedures effectively protect patients and whether these measures minimize harm while maximizing safety. CMS, State Survey Agencies, or Accrediting Organizations investigate reports of abuse, neglect, or noncompliance with health and safety standards. They also investigate critical events such as unexpected deaths or serious injuries. Hospitals are obligated to conduct a Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) activity if harm occurs. Although there is no separate statutory authority to regulate AI in clinical care, CoPs for hospitals already require policies and procedures for AI use, detailing qualifications and responsibilities of users and those monitoring safety issues. Principles such as safety, transparency, accountability, equity, fairness, and usefulness should guide AI and governors to ensure trustworthy solutions in patient care. The Biden-Harris administration’s Executive Order calls for national standards for trustworthy AI, developed through public-private partnerships. Local AI governance should provide organizational transparency on which AI solutions are used on which patient populations to avoid safety issues and inconsistent use. When organizations do not have the appropriate technical expertise to assure that AI is used appropriately, they can rely on independent entities such as the proposed assurance laboratories. The CoPs also mandate governance structures to monitor safety events. When patient harm is reported, the hospital should determine if the patient was harmed through a medical error or had a poor outcome and whether the application of an AI tool or algorithm was a contributing factor in the harm a patient experienced. Although new AI regulations have been suggested, the CoPs already empower CMS and accrediting organizations to regulate AI at the bedside. If AI is a potential cause of harm, hospitals must identify if the issue lies with the algorithm, hospital policies and procedures, or staff training. CMS can investigate hospitals and require corrective action plans if their processes and procedures do not protect patient safety. If an error is due to an intrinsic algorithm flaw, safety incidents, including non-harmful errors, should be reported to the manufacturer, with risks managed by the implementer. Poor implementation issues must be addressed through the QAPI process, and safety risks reported to the manufacturer. FDA-cleared AI technologies require medical harm reporting to the FDA and manufacturer. As for non-FDA-cleared AI technology, it will be important for the health care ecosystem to think about the mechanism to report AI-influenced medical errors, with QAPI findings reported back to the FDA and manufacturer. CMS and HHS must use their existing authority under the CoPs to ensure safe AI implementation in hospitals, with algorithm assessment left to the FDA and other bodies. While AI has the potential to improve patient outcomes and care, the critical goal is to employ AI in enhancing safety, not in creating new sources of medical harm without a clear mechanism for continuously improving and learning from any medical errors.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform healthcare decision-making but also introduces novel challenges in patient safety. AI-embedded clinical decision support (CDS) can improve diagnosis, including the identification of rare diseases, and offer higher-value treatment options. However, it can also create harm. For example, AI performance may change when applied to different populations, instead of those originally tested, potentially leading to incorrect diagnoses or treatments for certain demographic groups. Additionally, improper training can result in clinicians misusing AI, thus endangering patient safety. Moreover, implementation of new healthcare technology can improve safety but may also increase medical errors. Likewise, traditional decision support systems have resulted in alert fatigue, leading to medical errors. However, medical education has been lacking in training individuals on integrating AI algorithms into medical decisions. Thus, implementation science and quality improvement programs are required to emphasize the importance of developing plans and using simulation to mitigate potential harms. The National Academies of Medicine (NAM) defines patient safety as “the prevention of harm to patients.” Despite two decades of focus, the effectiveness of patient safety efforts remains debated among experts. On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued an executive order on AI, mandating federal agencies to develop standards for AI applications in healthcare. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) created a task force to ensure that AI deployment reduces patient harm and encourages continuous learning. This includes roles for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in software approval, the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) for AI inclusion in electronic health records, and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to ensure AI algorithms not violating civil rights. The requirement for hospitals to ensure patient safety is a condition of participation (CoP) in Medicare and Medicaid, as by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act authorizes the Secretary to impose additional requirements if necessary for health and safety. This involves investigating harms to determine if policies and procedures effectively protect patients and whether these measures minimize harm while maximizing safety. CMS, State Survey Agencies, or Accrediting Organizations investigate reports of abuse, neglect, or noncompliance with health and safety standards. They also investigate critical events such as unexpected deaths or serious injuries. Hospitals are obligated to conduct a Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) activity if harm occurs. Although there is no separate statutory authority to regulate AI in clinical care, CoPs for hospitals already require policies and procedures for AI use, detailing qualifications and responsibilities of users and those monitoring safety issues. Principles such as safety, transparency, accountability, equity, fairness, and usefulness should guide AI and governors to ensure trustworthy solutions in patient care. The Biden-Harris administration’s Executive Order calls for national standards for trustworthy AI, developed through public-private partnerships. Local AI governance should provide organizational transparency on which AI solutions are used on which patient populations to avoid safety issues and inconsistent use. When organizations do not have the appropriate technical expertise to assure that AI is used appropriately, they can rely on independent entities such as the proposed assurance laboratories. The CoPs also mandate governance structures to monitor safety events. When patient harm is reported, the hospital should determine if the patient was harmed through a medical error or had a poor outcome and whether the application of an AI tool or algorithm was a contributing factor in the harm a patient experienced. Although new AI regulations have been suggested, the CoPs already empower CMS and accrediting organizations to regulate AI at the bedside. If AI is a potential cause of harm, hospitals must identify if the issue lies with the algorithm, hospital policies and procedures, or staff training. CMS can investigate hospitals and require corrective action plans if their processes and procedures do not protect patient safety. If an error is due to an intrinsic algorithm flaw, safety incidents, including non-harmful errors, should be reported to the manufacturer, with risks managed by the implementer. Poor implementation issues must be addressed through the QAPI process, and safety risks reported to the manufacturer. FDA-cleared AI technologies require medical harm reporting to the FDA and manufacturer. As for non-FDA-cleared AI technology, it will be important for the health care ecosystem to think about the mechanism to report AI-influenced medical errors, with QAPI findings reported back to the FDA and manufacturer. CMS and HHS must use their existing authority under the CoPs to ensure safe AI implementation in hospitals, with algorithm assessment left to the FDA and other bodies. While AI has the potential to improve patient outcomes and care, the critical goal is to employ AI in enhancing safety, not in creating new sources of medical harm without a clear mechanism for continuously improving and learning from any medical errors.
What does the word “mandate” most nearly mean as used in the text?
- A commission
- B attenuate
- C concede
- D reciprocate
思路引導 VIP
請觀察句子中發出指令的主體（美國總統）與接受指令的對象（聯邦機構）之間的權力關係。當一位國家領導者發布了一份正式的「行政命令」時，他對於這些機構所採取的行動，是屬於「建議性質」，還是帶有「正式委派並要求執行」的指令感呢？哪一個動作最能描述這種『賦予任務與權限』的過程？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
法律與行政命令的脈絡
非常優秀！你能準確掌握 mandate 在正式文書中的用法，代表你對學術與政經英語有很好的敏銳度。在文中，這個詞出現在美國總統發布「行政命令」（Executive Order）的情境中，指總統「命令」或「授權」聯邦機構執行特定任務。選項 (A) commission 在此處作為動詞，意指正式委託或委派某人/機構執行特定職務，與文中總統下令要求的語境完全契合。
難度切入點與詞彙鑑別度
▼ 還有更多解析內容