As common decision -making, AI can save this human interaction

Common decision -making between doctors and patients may be ”The highlight of the patient’s centered“But three new articles of medical journals indicate that it is facing more problems than the peaks. However, it may be artificial intelligence that preserves this close human interaction.

“Common decision making is at a crossroads,” a perspective in the Journal of General Internal Medicine”Saving Common Decision. “Unfortunately, the recommendations of the most research and training for” promoting the science of SDM application “are more intersecting than crisis management.

Even a brief historical perspective shows that SDM suffers from failure to bloom. In 1982, Report by a Presidential Committee on Ethics in Medicine SDM was declared “appropriate ideal for professional relationships” and called on doctors “to respect and enhance their patients’ abilities for a wise exercise of their autonomy”.

However, 43 years later, the prospective writers-18 members of the Organization for research on health care and the quality learning learning community-recognized that while some doctors respect the patients: “What do you think would you like to make?” Many others still believe that, “let’s make this choice, it sounds okay?” It is a common decision -making process.

This attitude reminded me of a comment of language on a cheek from comic Stephen Colbert. “See what we can do when we work with you doing what I say?” He told the 2015 Colbert Nation audience. “It’s called a partnership.”

Cancer communication is limited

In cancer, where patient-dictor interactions have the highest shares, joint decision-making was named one of the central components of quality care in a 1999 report, Ensure Cancer Quality CareFrom the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine). Nevertheless, a review of SDM among patients with cancer in magazine Psycho-oncology He found that for doctors, “making decisions and taking responsibility for decisions remain an important part of the professional identity of doctors”. The fear of losing this identity, the authors wrote: “It tends to prevent the patient’s involvement and the application of SDM.”

It is not surprising that patients with cancer who want to speak feel as if they are not heard or cannot really deny what their oncologist considers clinically “optimal”. And, it turns out that oncologists are actually less open to SDM if a patient speaks and resists the recommendations they consider to be in the interest of the patient.

Meanwhile, for those who hope that Gen Z doctors will naturally be more sensitive, a Price Perspective, “When patients arrive with answersbrought discouraging news. When the issue of patients who brought a treatment recommendation from Chatgpt came between a group of medical students in the Seattle area, these internet doctors in the internet were running with an old -fashioned dismissal of the patient who “tell us what to order”.

There is a silent message that “we know even better”, mourned by Dr. Kumara Raja Sundar.

AI faces chronic problem

When considering SDM use, misuse and non -use, it is clear that this is a chronic problem, not an acid. Good intentions clash with the cultural rules that return to Hippocrates. The idea of the patient’s self -determination, writes Medical Ethical Dr. Jay Katz in The silent world of the doctor and the patientrepresents “a radical break with medical practices, as transmitted by a teacher to a student during more than two thousand years of recorded medical history”.

Perhaps equally important individual doctors are less and less likely to check their own time. In the 1980s, 80% of doctors worked in practices of ten or fewer doctors, according to the American Medical Union and their overwhelming percentage of them was in private practice. In 2024, for the first time, private practice doctors were a minorityIn just 42%, and about one in five doctors worked in 50 or more practices.

Paradoxically, AI can promote common decision -making on what is now often a highly time -consuming agenda precisely because the detailed, personalized level of information that is able to force a doctor’s professional identity. Similarly, the scale, scope and depth of the AI revolution will also force team leaders, health system executives, private investment in satrarians and all others who are now pulling strings to so many doctors to adapt to democratization.

There may be no other option. Already, people with breast, lung or prostate cancer can go A well -funded start This will help them transfer their medical record to a platform that compares their therapeutic plan with the guidelines of the clinical practice of the National Cancer Network. Separately, a survivor and businessman of cancer has launched an electronic platform To make a personalized AGA AI, a sophisticated search for medical literature, available to any cancer patient. And real -world elements in cancer care, Are now commercially available to clinical doctors and researcherswill inevitably be available directly to patients.

The question will no longer be if there is a joint decision, but how is it happening. The Sundar, a family doctor, proposes “relative humility”, with doctors “seeing visits that have been informed as opportunities as opportunities for deeper dialogue rather than threats to clinical power”.

He adds: “If patients are arming with information to be heard, our duty as clinicians is to meet them with recognition, not resistance.”