OP3

OP3

THE AI REVOLUTION IN OH: FROM QUESTION TO CONSENSUS. THE ROLE AND MISSION OF THE ‘AI IN OH’ SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP

1. Black¹, M. W. Johnson², J. O’Neill³, M. Healey⁴

¹Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, UK

²University of Manchester, UK

³Deputy Head of National School of Occupational Health NHSE WT&E, UK

⁴GSK, London, UK

Background

The use of AI was questioned in a UK Occupational Health (OH) Facebook group. The response generated more questions than answers, leading to the formation of an AI in OH working group. Initial meetings explored objectives, with the consensus being the need to enhance worker health through ethical AI integration. A mission and vision statement with expected outcomes, outlined in a consensus statement, ensued.

Aim

To take a question on the use of AI in OH and convert it into action. Creating an objective and expected outcomes using brainstorming techniques and developing an action plan.

Methods

Brainstorming techniques used within a community of interested people from a range of areas within OH, including clinical practice and academia.

Results

A mission and vision statement, detailing proposed outcomes, outlined in a consensus statement, with 5 key focus areas: Advocating for worker wellbeing, AI risk management, enhancing clinical value with AI, AI education for clinicians, and leveraging AI opportunities. A plan to create 5 different workstreams is being developed.

Conclusions

A single question can lead to a community coming together and creating effective outcomes using brainstorming techniques.  AI in OH is a question that the wider OH community needs answering and this method enabled a mission and vision covering 5 areas of interest within a consensus statement. Actions planned based on this bodes well for future use of AI in OH to enhance worker health.

Reference:

Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L. and Elhalal, A., 2020. From what to how: an initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and engineering ethics, 26(4), pp.2141-2168.