Back

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.

2026-06-22 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.06.17.26355917 medRxiv
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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
18.5%
2
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
10.7%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.7%
4
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
5
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
7
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.6%
9
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.4%
10
Medical Decision Making
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
11
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.1%
12
Nature
645 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.1%
13
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
14
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
15
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
16
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
47 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
17
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
18
Critical Care Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
19
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.3%
20
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
21
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
22
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
23
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
24
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
26
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
27
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%