RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/a-2769-1301
Artificial Intelligence to Improve Patient–Physician Communication in Surgery
Autor*innen
Abstract
Effective patient–physician communication is a cornerstone of surgical care, yet increasing clinical complexity and time constraints often limit opportunities for shared decision-making. Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a tool to supplement these interactions by improving perioperative risk communication, tailoring patient education, and reducing physician workload. Current applications include chatbots for preconsultation history gathering, AI-generated decision aids, and risk prediction models, which synthesize large datasets to provide individualized outcome predictions. Visualization platforms and large language model-driven documents further demonstrate potential to improve readability, completeness, and patient comprehension compared with traditional surgeon-generated materials. Research suggests that AI may enhance shared decision-making by increasing patient understanding, reducing decisional conflict, and supporting individualized risk-benefit discussions. Populations with complex needs—including patients with multiple comorbidities, limited English proficiency, or low health literacy—may experience particular benefit from AI-assisted communication. Indirect advantages are also evident; studies of ambient AI scribes report decreased documentation burden, reduced after-hours work, and improved patient engagement, suggesting downstream improvements in the patient–physician relationship. Despite these promising developments, limitations persist. AI models are prone to bias and lack transparency, raising concerns regarding fairness, accuracy, and trustworthiness. Overreliance on AI risks diminishing essential human elements of care, while errors in translation or misrepresentation of nuance may disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. Ensuring robust evaluation, representative training datasets, and clinician oversight is critical to safe implementation. AI tools show substantial promise in improving surgical communication, but more research is required to establish their effectiveness, address ethical challenges, and define best practices for integration into clinical care.
Publikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
09. Januar 2026
© 2026. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Birkeland S, Bismark M, Barry MJ, Möller S. Does greater patient involvement in healthcare decision-making affect malpractice complaints? A large case vignette survey. PLoS One 2021; 16 (07) e0254052
- 2 Di Battista M, Kernitsky J, Dibart S. Artificial intelligence chatbots in patient communication: current possibilities. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2024; 44 (06) 731-738
- 3 Lee JC, Hamill CS, Shnayder Y, Buczek E, Kakarala K, Bur AM. Exploring the role of artificial intelligence chatbots in preoperative counseling for head and neck cancer surgery. Laryngoscope 2024; 134 (06) 2757-2761
- 4 Chaker SC, Hung YC, Saad M, Golinko MS, Galdyn IA. Easing the burden on caregivers- applications of artificial intelligence for physicians and caregivers of children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2025; 62 (04) 574-587
- 5 Antel R, Abbasgholizadeh-Rahimi S, Guadagno E, Harley JM, Poenaru D. The use of artificial intelligence and virtual reality in doctor-patient risk communication: A scoping review. Patient Educ Couns 2022; 105 (10) 3038-3050
- 6 Gajjar AA, Kumar RP, Paliwoda ED. et al. Usefulness and accuracy of artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions for neurosurgical procedures. Neurosurgery 2024
- 7 Bian Y, Xiang Y, Tong B, Feng B, Weng X. Artificial intelligence-assisted system in postoperative follow-up of orthopedic patients: exploratory quantitative and qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (05) e16896
- 8 Chevalier O, Dubey G, Benkabbou A, Majbar MA, Souadka A. Comprehensive overview of artificial intelligence in surgery: a systematic review and perspectives. Pflugers Arch 2025; 477 (04) 617-626
- 9 Douglas MJ, Callcut R, Celi LA, Merchant N. Interpretation and use of applied/operational machine learning and artificial intelligence in surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2023; 103 (02) 317-333
- 10 Maheshwari K, Cywinski JB, Papay F, Khanna AK, Mathur P. Artificial intelligence for perioperative medicine: perioperative intelligence. Anesth Analg 2023; 136 (04) 637-645
- 11 Solanki SL, Pandrowala S, Nayak A, Bhandare M, Ambulkar RP, Shrikhande SV. Artificial intelligence in perioperative management of major gastrointestinal surgeries. World J Gastroenterol 2021; 27 (21) 2758-2770
- 12 Loftus TJ, Tighe PJ, Filiberto AC. et al. Artificial intelligence and surgical decision-making. JAMA Surg 2020; 155 (02) 148-158
- 13 Komorowski M, Celi LA, Badawi O, Gordon AC, Faisal AA. The artificial intelligence clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care. Nat Med 2018; 24 (11) 1716-1720
- 14 Kashaf MS, McGill E. Does shared decision making in cancer treatment improve quality of life? A systematic literature review. Med Decis Making 2015; 35 (08) 1037-1048
- 15 Weinstein JN, Clay K, Morgan TS. Informed patient choice: patient-centered valuing of surgical risks and benefits. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007; 26 (03) 726-730
- 16 Decker H, Trang K, Ramirez J. et al. Large language model-based chatbot vs surgeon-generated informed consent documentation for common procedures. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6 (10) e2336997
- 17 Diefenbach MA, Mohamed NE, Butz BP. et al. Acceptability and preliminary feasibility of an internet/CD-ROM-based education and decision program for early-stage prostate cancer patients: randomized pilot study. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (01) e6
- 18 Bahrami S, Rubulotta F. Artificial intelligence-driven translation tools in intensive care units for enhancing communication and research. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2025; 22 (01) 22
- 19 Joo H, Fernández A, Wick EC, Moreno Lepe G, Manuel SP. Association of language barriers with perioperative and surgical outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6 (07) e2322743
- 20 Leinert C, Fotteler M, Kocar TD. et al; SURGE-Ahead Study Group. Supporting surgery with geriatric co-management and AI (SURGE-ahead): a study protocol for the development of a digital geriatrician. PLoS One 2023; 18 (06) e0287230
- 21 Blaseg E, Huffstetler A. Artificial intelligence scribes shape health care delivery. Am Fam Physician 2025; 111 (04) 304-305
- 22 Shah SJ, Crowell T, Jeong Y. et al. Physician perspectives on ambient AI scribes. JAMA Netw Open 2025; 8 (03) e251904
- 23 Duggan MJ, Gervase J, Schoenbaum A. et al. Clinician experiences with ambient scribe technology to assist with documentation burden and efficiency. JAMA Netw Open 2025; 8 (02) e2460637
- 24 Ma SP, Liang AS, Shah SJ. et al. Ambient artificial intelligence scribes: utilization and impact on documentation time. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2025; 32 (02) 381-385
- 25 Stults CD, Deng S, Martinez MC. et al. Evaluation of an ambient artificial intelligence documentation platform for clinicians. JAMA Netw Open 2025; 8 (05) e258614
- 26 Shah SJ, Devon-Sand A, Ma SP. et al. Ambient artificial intelligence scribes: physician burnout and perspectives on usability and documentation burden. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2025; 32 (02) 375-380
- 27 Esmaeilzadeh P, Mirzaei T, Dharanikota S. Patients' perceptions toward human-artificial intelligence interaction in health care: experimental study. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (11) e25856
- 28 Kavian JA, Wilkey HL, Patel PA, Boyd CJ. Harvesting the power of artificial intelligence for surgery: uses, implications, and ethical considerations. Am Surg 2023; 89 (12) 5102-5104
- 29 Arjomandi Rad A, Vardanyan R, Athanasiou T, Maessen J, Sardari Nia P. The ethical considerations of integrating artificial intelligence into surgery: a review. Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2025; 40 (03) 40
- 30 Bignami EG, Cozzani F, Del Rio P, Bellini V. The role of artificial intelligence in surgical patient perioperative management. Minerva Anestesiol 2021; 87 (07) 817-822
- 31 Buolamwini J. Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proc Mach Learn Res 2018; 81: 1-15
- 32 Cobianchi L, Verde JM, Loftus TJ. et al. Artificial intelligence and surgery: ethical dilemmas and open issues. J Am Coll Surg 2022; 235 (02) 268-275
- 33 Morris MX, Song EY, Rajesh A, Asaad M, Phillips BT. Ethical, legal, and financial considerations of artificial intelligence in surgery. Am Surg 2023; 89 (01) 55-60
- 34 Aldosari B, Aldosari H, Alanazi A. Challenges of artificial intelligence in medicine. Stud Health Technol Inform 2025; 323: 16-20
