Abstract
Background and Aim The potential of large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 to generate clear and empathetic medical documentation is becoming increasingly relevant. This study evaluates these constructs in discharge letters generated by GPT-4 compared to those written by emergency department (ED) physicians.
Methods In this retrospective, blinded study, 72 discharge letters written by ED physicians were compared to GPT-4-generated versions, which were based on the physicians’ follow-up notes in the electronic medical record (EMR). Seventeen evaluators, 7 physicians, 5 nurses, and 5 patients, were asked to select their preferred letter (human or LLM) for each patient and rate empathy, clarity, and overall quality using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent). A secondary analysis by 3 ED attending physicians assessed the medical accuracy of both sets of letters.
Results Across the 72 comparisons, evaluators preferred GPT-4-generated letters in 1,009 out of 1,206 evaluations (83.7%). GPT-4 letters were rated significantly higher for empathy, clarity, and overall quality (p < 0.001). Additionally, GPT-4-generated letters demonstrated superior medical accuracy, with a median score of 5.0 compared to 4.0 for physician-written letters (p = 0.025).
Conclusion GPT-4 shows strong potential in generating ED discharge letters that are empathetic and clear, preferable by healthcare professionals and patients, offering a promising tool to reduce the workload of ED physicians. However, further research is necessary to explore patient perceptions and best practices for leveraging the advantages of AI together with physicians in clinical practice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB of Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel, gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
