RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Automating Responses to Patient Portal Messages Using Generative AI
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.04.25.24306183
DO 10.1101/2024.04.25.24306183
A1 Kaur, Amarpreet
A1 Budko, Alex
A1 Liu, Katrina
A1 Eaton, Eric
A1 Steitz, Bryan
A1 Johnson, Kevin B.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/25/2024.04.25.24306183.abstract
AB Background Patient portals serve as vital bridges between patients and providers, playing an increasing role in healthcare communication. The rising volume and complexity of these messages is exacerbating physician and nursing burnout. Recent studies have demonstrated that AI chatbots can generate message responses that are viewed favorably by healthcare professionals; however, these studies have not included the diverse range of messages typically found in patient portals. Our goal is to investigate the quality of GPT-generated message responses across the spectrum of message types within a patient portal.Methods We used novel prompt engineering techniques to craft synthetic responses tailored to adult primary care patients. We enrolled a sample of primary care providers in a cross-sectional study to compare authentic with synthetic patient portal message responses, generated by GPT-4. The survey assessed each message’s empathy, relevance, medical accuracy, and readability on a scale from 0 to 5. Respondents were asked to identify messages that were GPT-generated vs. provider-generated. Mean scores for all metrics were computed for subsequent analysis.Results A total of 49 health care providers participated in the survey (59% completion rate), comprising 16 physicians and 32 advanced practice providers (APPs). When presented with GPT vs. authentic message response pairs, participants correctly identified GPT-generated responses 73% of the time and correctly identified authentic responses 50% of the time. In comparison to messages generated by physicians, GPT-4 generated messages exhibited higher mean scores for empathy (3.57 vs. 3.07, p < 0.001), relevance (3.94 vs. 3.81, p = 0.08) accuracy (4.05 vs. 3.95, p= 0.12) and readability (4.5 vs. 4.13, p < 0.001).Limitations The study is a single site, single-specialty study, limited due to the use of synthetic data.Conclusion Our findings affirm the potential of GPT-generated patient portal message responses to achieve comparable levels of empathy, relevance, and readability to those found in typical responses according to the health care providers and indicates promising prospects for their integration in the healthcare sector. Additional studies should be done within provider workflows and with careful evaluation of patient attitudes and concerns related to the ethics as well as the quality of generated patient portal message responses in all settings.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, specifically the National Library Of Medicine.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The ethics committee/IRB of the University of Pennsylvania Human Research Protection Program gave ethical approval for this work under study No. 854147.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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript