Some physicians view their colleagues who use AI as less competent, according to a recent study by Johns Hopkins University.
The research included a “diverse group” of 276 clinicians from a major hospital system, including attending physicians, residents, fellows and advanced practice providers. It evaluated different scenarios, including: A physician using no AI, one using AI as a primary decision-making tool, and another for verification purposes.
Those who were more dependent on AI faced an increasing “competence penalty,” according to the study, meaning they were viewed with more skepticism than those who did not rely on AI.
The study found that its use in medical decision-making most significantly impacted how physicians are perceived by their colleagues. Physicians who primarily rely on generative AI for decision-making face significant skepticism from their colleagues, who connect their use of AI with a lack of clinical skill and competence, according to the study. This ultimately leads to a diminished perception of quality of patient care.
Framing AI as a “second opinion” or verification tool partially improved negative perceptions from peers, but it did not fully eliminate them. Not using any AI resulted in the most favorable peer perceptions.
The study found that while physicians held negative views of their colleagues who relied on AI, they did recognize AI as a beneficial tool for enhancing precision in clinical assessment. Clinicians in the study still generally acknowledged the value of AI for improving the accuracy of clinical assessments, and they view institutionally customized AI as even more useful.
The study ultimately led to “thoughtful suggests” for AI implementation in healthcare settings, and highlighted the need to balance innovation with maintaining professional trust and reputation.
