Artificial intelligence (AI) has been hailed as a ‘transformative technology’ for the NHS. Depending on who you ask, it could help solve some of the NHS’s biggest challenges or create new ones.
We already know that people approve of AI that could help patients receive better care, faster. At a time when the NHS is facing increasing pressure, the possibility that AI presents is understandably attractive.
But at the same time people are concerned that AI is biased, lacks transparency and accountability and are uneasy about the prospect of AI replacing humans, particularly in the context of healthcare where human interaction is seen as fundamental.
What we don’t know is how people feel about AI being used by NICE to help develop the guidance that shapes health and care across the NHS. How comfortable are people with AI helping to review vast amounts of research evidence that is updated daily? When and where should humans be in control?
These are the types of questions that the NICE Listens public dialogue on AI in health and care guidance aims to address.
Moving beyond top of mind views
People can have knee jerk reactions when they are asked about AI. For some, AI is seen as a technology that will solve everything, for others it is a serious existential threat.
One of the most interesting and valuable things about public dialogue as a method is that participants are encouraged to build an understanding of the topic at hand. And previous public engagement on AI shows that when people have time to learn, reflect and hear different perspectives, they tend to move beyond simple for-or-against positions. Instead, they start asking more nuanced questions like how important is it that a decision is explained? Who is responsible if AI gets in wrong?
In other words, the conversation shifts from whether AI should be used at all to the conditions under which it is acceptable. I think this is where the most valuable discussions happen. Not because everyone will agree, that’s not the goal of public dialogue, but because people start to think about the real trade-offs at play.
What we hope to learn through this NICE Listens public dialogue
The aim of this public dialogue is to understand the values that shape public views on the use of AI in health and care guidance specifically.
What does trustworthy AI look like?
Where do people want humans to remain firmly in the loop?
What is the appetite for efficiency gains in the context of perceived risks?
The public won’t decide whether or how NICE uses AI. That remains the responsibility of NICE, guided by evidence, expertise and its statutory responsibilities. But understanding how people weigh the potential benefits of AI against concerns about fairness, transparency and accountability is an essential part of making those decisions well.
