Quality and Safety profiles of AI-Generated vs Clinician-Generated Handoffs in Hospital Medicine

End-of-rotation handoffs are critical for patient safety but add to documentation burden for hospitalists. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may help automate handoff creation using electronic health record data, but its impact on quality and safety is unclear. Methods: We developed an AI handoff tool with a large language model using clinical notes as input and conducted a retrospective evaluation comparing AI-generated and clinician-authored handoffs. Handoffs were assessed across domains of quality and safety through a structured review. Results: Quality ratings were similar between AI and human handoffs (3.7 vs. 3.5, p=0.57). AI-generated handoffs were rated higher for organization (4.4 vs. 4.1, p=0.05) and completeness (4.1 vs. 3.6, p=0.01), but lower for conciseness (3.7 vs. 4.1, p=0.03) and accuracy (4.1 vs. 4.4, p=0.03). Error rates were comparable (0.3/handoff in both groups); however, AI-generated handoffs included inaccuracies (9% of AI errors) and hallucinations (1% of AI errors), while clinician-authored handoffs contained only omissions. Conclusion: Human and AI handoffs have differing error profiles and tradeoffs between completeness and conciseness. Prospective evaluation in clinical workflows is underway.