Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37699649›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2024

Transforming healthcare documentation: harnessing the potential of AI to generate discharge summaries.

Reece Alexander James Clough, William Anthony Sparkes, Oliver Thomas Clough, Joshua Thomas Sykes, Alexander Thomas Steventon, Kate King

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. ED-Explain: Personalized Video Instructions for Patients Discharged from the Emergency Department.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Reece Alexander James CloughInstitute of Naval Medicine, Gosport, UK reece.clough@nhs.net.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1176-2804
William Anthony SparkesInstitute of Naval Medicine, Gosport, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6554-1530
Alexander Thomas SteventonInstitute of Naval Medicine, Gosport, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1274-3548
Kate KingAcademic Department of Military General Practice, Research & Clinical Innovation, Defence Medical Services, ICT Centre,, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1016-5357
Royal Hospital Haslar · GBBirmingham Research Park · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHospital discharge summaries play an essential role in informing GPs of recent admissions to ensure excellent continuity of care and prevent adverse events; however, they are notoriously poorly written, time-consuming, and can result in delayed discharge.

aimTo evaluate the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to produce high-quality discharge summaries equivalent to the level of a doctor who has completed the UK Foundation Programme. DESIGN &

settingFeasibility study using 25 mock patient vignettes.

methodTwenty-five mock patient vignettes were written by the authors. Five junior doctors wrote discharge summaries from the case vignettes (five each). The same case vignettes were input into ChatGPT. In total, 50 discharge summaries were generated; 25 by Al and 25 by junior doctors. Quality and suitability were determined through both independent GP evaluators and adherence to a minimum dataset.

resultsOf the 25 AI-written discharge summaries 100% were deemed by GPs to be of an acceptable quality compared with 92% of the junior doctor summaries. They both showed a mean compliance of 97% with the minimum dataset. In addition, the ability of GPs to determine if the summary was written by ChatGPT was poor, with only a 60% accuracy of detection. Similarly, when run through an AI-detection tool all were recognised as being very unlikely to be written by AI.

conclusionAI has proven to produce discharge summaries of equivalent quality to a junior doctor who has completed the UK Foundation Programme; however, larger studies with real-world patient data with NHS-approved AI tools will need to be conducted.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceChatGPTdischarge summaryfeasibility studiesgeneral practice

Identifiers

PMID37699649
PMCPMC11169980
OpenAlexW4386692532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.