Won't this tech be given to GPs allowing us to bypass BH altogether?
If a GP passively uses this tech during a consult can they enter a diagnosis based on the AI assessment straightaway? Does the patient have any autonomy or Informed consent in this scenario?
So at this point, all of this work is clinical research, which means there is an informed consent process that takes place for every patient. We haven't gotten to that part of the interview yet, We have a significant amount of work into the consent process for these clinical trials. These technologies need to be proven in clinical trials first come up and only later brought to clinical practice, and that is in the future. Informed consent matters at every step of the process.
I was envisioning a world where the tech has been validated and is considered noninferior to a BH diagnostic consult.
In that future the tech would logically migrate into primary care. GPs could treat mental illness simply by rubber-stamping an automated diagnosis and signing off on an electronic prescription. No history, exam or thinking required.
I am not a doctor. I have spent a lot of time recently thinking about these issues. I had to because I was given an extremely halfbaked assessment and treatment plan by an overwhelmed primary care doc. Much later I had a very thorough assessment from specialists, namely sleep medicine and neuropsychology.
The difference was STARK. Primary care needs help with mental health assessments but I'm not sure about this specific technological approach. It would improve the diagnostic accuracy over primary care but that is a very low bar.
Won't this tech be given to GPs allowing us to bypass BH altogether?
If a GP passively uses this tech during a consult can they enter a diagnosis based on the AI assessment straightaway? Does the patient have any autonomy or Informed consent in this scenario?
So at this point, all of this work is clinical research, which means there is an informed consent process that takes place for every patient. We haven't gotten to that part of the interview yet, We have a significant amount of work into the consent process for these clinical trials. These technologies need to be proven in clinical trials first come up and only later brought to clinical practice, and that is in the future. Informed consent matters at every step of the process.
I was envisioning a world where the tech has been validated and is considered noninferior to a BH diagnostic consult.
In that future the tech would logically migrate into primary care. GPs could treat mental illness simply by rubber-stamping an automated diagnosis and signing off on an electronic prescription. No history, exam or thinking required.
And how is that better or worse than our current state of affairs?
I'm not an NHS doc...I don't know. I do know in the US the state of affairs isn't good and more robust diagnosis only works with more empathetic docs
I am not a doctor. I have spent a lot of time recently thinking about these issues. I had to because I was given an extremely halfbaked assessment and treatment plan by an overwhelmed primary care doc. Much later I had a very thorough assessment from specialists, namely sleep medicine and neuropsychology.
The difference was STARK. Primary care needs help with mental health assessments but I'm not sure about this specific technological approach. It would improve the diagnostic accuracy over primary care but that is a very low bar.