Meghan O’Connor Discusses Legal Implications of AI and Provider-Patient Relationships in MedCity News Article
Meghan O’Connor, a Milwaukee-based partner in Quarles & Brady’s Health & Life Sciences Practice Group, spoke with MedCity News on how the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping the provider-patient relationship. The article also gives practical steps providers can take to address the increasing use of AI by patients.
Increasingly, patients are using AI chat boxes and discussing their findings with their provider. The issue is that sometimes the AI generated information can be misleading or inaccurate. In situations where the patient brings up that they have been relying on inaccurate information, O’Connor said the provider’s failure to correct misinformation could lead to a malpractice issue.
An excerpt:
Patients are increasingly walking into exam rooms having already consulted an AI chatbot about their symptoms — and sometimes trusting it as much as they trust their doctor.
But when a chatbot gets it wrong and a patient gets hurt, who bears the responsibility? According to Meghan O’Connor, health law partner at Quarles & Brady and co-chair of the firm’s AI team, the answer is still being written.
“This is one of the most significant open questions in healthcare law right now, and the honest answer is that liability allocation is going to be highly fact-dependent and will likely take years of litigation to clarify,” she remarked.
…
“My practical recommendation for providers: correct misinformation, document the conversation and treat AI-sourced information the same way you’d treat any patient-reported information that conflicts with clinical judgment — address it directly and note that you did,” she stated.
…
She said silence is rarely the safer option.
“Think of it this way: if a patient told you they read on an internet forum that drinking pickle juice would cure their glaucoma, no reasonable ophthalmologist would say nothing. AI-sourced misinformation should be treated the same way. The source of the bad information does not change the provider’s reasonable duty to the patient once it’s been raised in the context of care,” O’Connor declared.