Currently submitted to: JMIR Human Factors
Date Submitted: Mar 17, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Mar 30, 2026 - May 25, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
An Evaluation of Clinician Trust, Perceptions, and Human Factors in AI-Enabled Clinical Decision Support for Acute Care: A Mixed-Methods Study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to enhance clinical decision-making in high-acuity settings such as intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency departments (EDs). However, despite promising performance, many AI-driven clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSS) face poor adoption due to issues of trust, workflow disruption, and alert fatigue. Understanding the human factors that shape clinician acceptance is critical to guide safe and effective implementation of AI-CDSS in acute care. Theoretical frameworks including the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 model and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) suggest that successful adoption requires addressing sociotechnical interactions among clinician trust, system design, organizational readiness, and task complexity, yet few empirical studies have applied these frameworks to AI-CDSS in acute care settings.
Objective:
This study aimed to evaluate emergency medicine and critical care clinicians’ perceptions of AI-CDSS and to identify key factors influencing adoption, including trust, design preferences, and workflow integration.
Methods:
A SEIPS 2.0 informed mixed-methods study evaluated ICU and ED clinicians from Emory Healthcare on perceptions of AI in clinical practice. An expert-reviewed survey (N=57) assessed clinician perceptions, trust, and implementation preferences. Semi-structured interviews (N=11) included A/B testing of AI-CDSS and clinical sepsis scenario to explore decision-making in context. Transcripts were thematically analyzed using Braun and Clarke's framework in ATLAS.ti. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively.
Results:
Trust in AI varied significantly by patient acuity (Cochran's Q=30.40, p<0.0001): stable patients (75.4%, 95% CI: 62.9-84.8%), deteriorating patients (47.4%, 95% CI: 35.0-60.1%), and ICU/ED patients (43.9%, 95% CI: 31.8-56.7%). Internal consistency was acceptable-to-good across three scales (Cronbach's alpha: AI Perception=0.891, Trust=0.743, Implementation=0.740). Barriers included over-reliance, insufficient training, and data quality concerns. For the CDSS-AI design, clinicians preferred opt-in alerts (90%), evidence-linked recommendations (63%), and avoiding overt mention of AI increased acceptance (73%). Thematic analysis yielded 36 themes across six domains: trust and transparency, alert usability, workflow fit, data concerns, training needs, and perceived clinical impact. Clinicians favored AI-CDSS that preserved autonomy, minimized disruption, and provided transparent rationale.
Conclusions:
Adoption of AI-CDSS in critical care is not solely a technical issue, but a human-factors challenge centered on trust, transparency, and workflow compatibility. Applying the SEIPS 2.0 framework, we propose a phased implementation approach: beginning with lower-acuity applications where clinician trust is highest, then gradually extending to higher-acuity scenarios with enhanced transparency and override mechanisms. This graduated strategy addresses the critical interdependencies among people (trust), tools (design), organization (training), and task (clinical complexity) identified in this study.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.