Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39009780›Full record

Trial reportNature medicine2024

Outpatient reception via collaboration between nurses and a large language model: a randomized controlled trial.

Peixing Wan, Zigeng Huang, Wenjun Tang, Yulan Nie, Dajun Pei, Shaofen Deng, Jing Chen, Yizhi Zhou, Hongru Duan, Qingyu Chen and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nature medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Multimodal Wearable Biosensing Meets Multidomain AI: A Pathway to Decentralized Healthcare.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  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

11 authors.

Peixing Wan *State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zigeng Huang *State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Wenjun TangState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yulan NieSouthern University of Science and Technology Yantian Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Dajun PeiRenmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Shaofen DengSouthern University of Science and Technology Yantian Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Jing ChenRenmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Yizhi ZhouSouthern University of Science and Technology Yantian Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Hongru DuanSouthern University of Science and Technology Yantian Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Qingyu ChenSection of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. qingyu.chen@yale.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6036-1516
Erping LongState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. erping.long@ibms.pumc.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3502-5596

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reception is an essential process for patients seeking medical care and a critical component influencing the healthcare experience. However, current communication systems rely mainly on human efforts, which are both labor and knowledge intensive. A promising alternative is to leverage the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to assist the communication in medical center reception sites. Here we curated a unique dataset comprising 35,418 cases of real-world conversation audio corpus between outpatients and receptionist nurses from 10 reception sites across two medical centers, to develop a site-specific prompt engineering chatbot (SSPEC). The SSPEC efficiently resolved patient queries, with a higher proportion of queries addressed in fewer rounds of queries and responses (Q&Rs; 68.0% ≤2 rounds) compared with nurse-led sessions (50.5% ≤2 rounds) (P = 0.009) across administrative, triaging and primary care concerns. We then established a nurse-SSPEC collaboration model, overseeing the uncertainties encountered during the real-world deployment. In a single-center randomized controlled trial involving 2,164 participants, the primary endpoint indicated that the nurse-SSPEC collaboration model received higher satisfaction feedback from patients (3.91 ± 0.90 versus 3.39 ± 1.15 in the nurse group, P < 0.001). Key secondary outcomes indicated reduced rate of repeated Q&R (3.2% versus 14.4% in the nurse group, P < 0.001) and reduced negative emotions during visits (2.4% versus 7.8% in the nurse group, P < 0.001) and enhanced response quality in terms of integrity (4.37 ± 0.95 versus 3.42 ± 1.22 in the nurse group, P < 0.001), empathy (4.14 ± 0.98 versus 3.27 ± 1.22 in the nurse group, P < 0.001) and readability (3.86 ± 0.95 versus 3.71 ± 1.07 in the nurse group, P = 0.006). Overall, our study supports the feasibility of integrating LLMs into the daily hospital workflow and introduces a paradigm for improving communication that benefits both patients and nurses. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry identifier: ChiCTR2300077245 .

Indexed as

NursesOutpatientsAdultCommunicationCooperative BehaviorFemaleHumansLanguageMaleMiddle AgedPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.