Agentic Artificial Intelligence for Hospital Readmission Review: A Single-Center Blinded Evaluation and Exploratory Qualitative Analysis
Gensheimer, M. F.; Adhikari, R.; Parmer-Chow, C.; Liu, N.; Ma, S.; Shieh, L.
Show abstract
Background: Manual review of 30-day hospital readmissions can identify actionable quality and safety problems, but it is labor-intensive. We developed and evaluated an agentic AI workflow for evidence-grounded readmission review. Materials and methods: We studied adult patients with unplanned 30-day readmission after discharge from a medicine hospitalist service at a single academic health system. An AI agent using a large language model queried a database containing notes, encounters, procedures, laboratory results, and other clinical data, and completed the same structured readmission-review rubric used by physicians. In the primary comparative evaluation, 20 randomly selected readmissions from 2025 were each reviewed by two physicians and the AI system. Blinded physician evaluators rated review quality. After rubric refinement, the AI workflow was applied to 100 recent readmissions in an exploratory expanded-cohort analysis of recurring improvement opportunities. Results: In the primary comparative evaluation, the AI classified 9/20 readmissions (45%) as preventable, compared with 19/40 physician reviews (47.5%). Blinded overall quality ratings were similar for AI and physician reviews (4.35 vs. 4.20 on a 1-5 scale; mean difference 0.15, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.48; p=0.49), as were factuality/support and usefulness/actionability ratings. No AI hallucinations were identified during factuality review. Agreement on preventability and primary readmission category was low for both AI-human and human-human comparisons. The AI system cost $0.23 per chart; physician reviewers took a median of 15 minutes, corresponding to an estimated $42.43 per chart. In the exploratory expanded-cohort analysis, AI-assisted review identified recurring vulnerabilities in post-discharge follow-up plans, incomplete inpatient workups, medication-safety transitions, and indwelling-device transitions. Conclusions: Agentic AI produced readmission reviews with similar blinded quality ratings to physician reviews in this small single-center primary comparative evaluation and supported identification of recurring quality-improvement themes in the exploratory expanded-cohort analysis. Preventability judgments remained variable among both AI and physicians, underscoring the need for human oversight and prospective evaluation before operational use.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Utility of Automatable Prediction Models for Improving Palliative and End-Of-Life Care Outcomes: Towards Routine Decision Analysis Before Implementation 95%
- Validation of a Derived International Patient Severity Algorithm to Support COVID-19 Analytics from Electronic Health Record Data 95%
- Observer: Creation of a Novel Multimodal Dataset for Outpatient Care Research 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of a Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) Symptom Lexicon Using Electronic Health Record Clinical Notes 94%
- ConceptWAS: a high-throughput method for early identification of COVID-19 presenting symptoms 92%
- Natural language processing for scalable feature engineering and ultra-high-dimensional confounding adjustment in healthcare database studies 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical code sets and the problem of redundancy in code set repositories 94%
- Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach 92%
- Heterogeneity of Diagnosis and Documentation of Post-COVID Conditions in Primary Care: A Machine Learning Analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Low adherence to existing model reporting guidelines by commonly used clinical prediction models 93%
- Score for Emergency Risk Prediction (SERP): An Interpretable Machine Learning AutoScore–Derived Triage Tool for Predicting Mortality after Emergency Admissions 91%
- Characterizing Potential Conflicts of Interest Among UpToDate and DynaMed Content Contributors 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Interventions To Improve Patient Safety During The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 90%
- How, Why And Under What Circumstances Does A Quality Improvement Collaborative Build Knowledge And Skills In Clinicians Working With People With Dementia? A Realist Informed Process Evaluation 88%
- Improving the impact of pharmacy interventions in hospitals 88%
"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.