Physician- and Large Language Model-Generated Hospital Discharge Summaries: A Blinded, Comparative Quality and Safety Study
Williams, C. Y. K.; Subramanian, C. R.; Ali, S. S.; Apolinario, M.; Askin, E.; Barish, P.; Cheng, M.; Deardorff, W. J.; Donthi, N.; Ganeshan, S.; Huang, O.; Kantor, M. A.; Lai, A. R.; Manchanda, A.; Moore, K. A.; Muniyappa, A. N.; Nair, G.; Patel, P. P.; Santhosh, L.; Schneider, S.; Torres, S.; Yukawa, M.; Hubbard, C. C.; Rosner, B. I.
Show abstract
ImportanceHigh quality discharge summaries are associated with improved patient outcomes but contribute to clinical documentation burden. Large language models (LLMs) provide an opportunity to support physicians by drafting discharge summary narratives. ObjectiveTo determine whether LLM-generated discharge summary narratives are of comparable quality and safety to those of physicians. DesignCross-sectional study. SettingUniversity of California, San Francisco. Participants100 randomly selected Inpatient Hospital Medicine encounters of 3-6 days duration between 2019-2022. ExposureBlinded evaluation of physician- and LLM-generated narratives was performed in duplicate by 22 attending physician reviewers. Main Outcomes and MeasuresNarratives were reviewed for overall quality, reviewer preference, comprehensiveness, concision, coherence, and three error types - inaccuracies, omissions, and hallucinations. Each error individually, and each narrative overall, were assigned potential harmfulness scores on a 0-7 adapted AHRQ scale. ResultsAcross 100 encounters, LLM- and physician-generated narratives were comparable in overall quality on a 1-5 Likert scale (average 3.67 [SD 0.49] vs 3.77 [SD 0.57], p=0.213) and reviewer preference ({chi}2 = 5.2, p=0.270). LLM-generated narratives were more concise (4.01 [SD 0.37] vs. 3.70 [SD 0.59]; p<0.001) and more coherent (4.16 [SD 0.39] vs. 4.01 [SD 0.53], p=0.019) than their physician-generated counterparts, but less comprehensive (3.72 [SD 0.58] vs. 4.13 [SD 0.58]; p<0.001). LLM-generated narratives contained more unique errors (average 2.91 [SD 2.54] errors per summary) than physician-generated narratives (1.82 [SD 1.94]). Averaged across individual errors, there was no significant difference in the potential for harm between LLM- and physician-generated narratives (1.35 [SD 1.07] vs 1.34 [SD 1.05], p=0.986). Both LLM- and physician-generated narratives had low overall potential for harm (<1 on 0-7 scale), although LLM-generated narratives scored higher than physician narratives (0.84 [SD 0.98] vs 0.36 [SD 0.70], p<0.001). Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study of 100 inpatient Hospital Medicine encounters, LLM-generated discharge summary narratives were of similar quality, and were preferred equally, to those generated by physicians. LLM-generated summaries were more likely to contain errors but had low overall harmfulness scores. Our findings suggest that LLMs could be used to draft discharge summary narratives of comparable quality and safety to those written by physicians. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSCan large language models (LLMs) draft hospital discharge summary narratives of comparable quality and safety to those written by physicians? FindingsIn this cross-sectional study of 100 discharge summaries, LLM- and physician- generated narratives were rated comparably by blinded reviewers on overall quality and preference. LLM-generated narratives were more concise and coherent than their physician-generated counterparts, but less comprehensive. While LLM-generated narratives were more likely to contain errors, their overall potential for harm was low. MeaningThese findings suggest the potential for LLMs to aid clinicians by drafting discharge summary narratives.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Bridging the Literacy Gap for Surgical Consents: An AI-Human Expert Collaborative Approach 94%
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 94%
- Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Empowering Personalized Pharmacogenomics with Generative AI Solutions 92%
- Clinical Utility of Automatable Prediction Models for Improving Palliative and End-Of-Life Care Outcomes: Towards Routine Decision Analysis Before Implementation 92%
- Observer: Creation of a Novel Multimodal Dataset for Outpatient Care Research 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Natural Language Word-Embeddings as a glimpse into healthcare at the End Of Life 93%
- AI-Generated Clinical Summaries: Errors and Susceptibility to Speech and Speaker Variability 89%
- User Testing of a Diagnostic Decision Support System with Machine-assisted Chart Review to Facilitate Clinical Genomic Diagnosis 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Structured Codes and Free-Text Notes: Measuring Information Complementarity in Electronic Health Records 90%
- COHD-COVID: Columbia Open Health Data for COVID-19 Research 90%
- Distinguishing Admissions Specifically for COVID-19 from Incidental SARS-CoV-2 Admissions: A National Retrospective EHR Study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.