Comparison of the Quality of Discharge Letters Written by Large Language Models and Junior Clinicians: Single-Blinded Study

Abstract

BackgroundDischarge letters are a critical component in the continuity of care between specialists and primary care providers. However, these letters are time-consuming to write, underprioritized in comparison to direct clinical care, and are often tasked to junior doctors. Prior studies assessing the quality of discharge summaries written for inpatient hospital admissions show inadequacies in many domains. Large language models such as GPT have the ability to summarize large volumes of unstructured free text such as electronic medical records and have the potential to automate such tasks, providing time savings and consistency in quality. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the performance of GPT-4 in generating discharge letters written from urology specialist outpatient clinics to primary care providers and to compare their quality against letters written by junior clinicians. MethodsFictional electronic records were written by physicians simulating 5 common urology outpatient cases with long-term follow-up. Records comprised simulated consultation notes, referral letters and replies, and relevant discharge summaries from inpatient admissions. GPT-4 was tasked to write discharge letters for these cases with a specified target audience of primary care providers who would be continuing the patient’s care. Prompts were written for safety, content, and style. Concurrently, junior clinicians were provided with the same case records and instructional prompts. GPT-4 output was assessed for instances of hallucination. A blinded panel of primary care physicians then evaluated the letters using a standardized questionnaire tool. ResultsGPT-4 outperformed human counterparts in information provision (mean 4.32, SD 0.95 vs 3.70, SD 1.27; P=.03) and had no instances of hallucination. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean clarity (4.16, SD 0.95 vs 3.68, SD 1.24; P=.12), collegiality (4.36, SD 1.00 vs 3.84, SD 1.22; P=.05), conciseness (3.60, SD 1.12 vs 3.64, SD 1.27; P=.71), follow-up recommendations (4.16, SD 1.03 vs 3.72, SD 1.13; P=.08), and overall satisfaction (3.96, SD 1.14 vs 3.62, SD 1.34; P=.36) between the letters generated by GPT-4 and humans, respectively. ConclusionsDischarge letters written by GPT-4 had equivalent quality to those written by junior clinicians, without any hallucinations. This study provides a proof of concept that large language models can be useful and safe tools in clinical documentation.