ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Tailoring Discharge Summaries to Health Care Providers' Needs (Part 1 of the Framework and Implementation of AI Tools Project): User-Centered Design Approach.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models for post-discharge follow-up in erectile dysfunction care: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Expert Evaluation and Consensus on GPT-4o Summaries of Clinical Letters: Validation and Results of the Framework and Implementation of AI Tools Project.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medical discharge letters are critical for continuity of care but often lack clarity and personalization, making it difficult for health care providers to retrieve essential information. While large language models (LLMs) offer potential for automating summary generation, their effectiveness depends heavily on the quality and contextual relevance of the prompts used. Objective: The objective of this study was to develop and describe a human-centered, replicable framework for creating individualized prompts that guide LLMs in generating summaries tailored to the specific needs of health care providers. Methods: A multidisciplinary workshop was conducted at Ghent University Hospital with 26 health care providers from 5 institutions, including hospitals and general practitioner networks. Participants brainstormed ideal summary formats, generating 170 ideas categorized into themes such as "structure," "medical history," "medication," and "follow-up." These insights informed the development of a 110-item structured questionnaire distributed to 33 participants. Responses were used to generate personalized and generic prompts, refined using the context, objective, style, tone, audience, and response (CO-STAR) framework. Results: "Structure and layout" (40/170, 23.5%) and "follow-up" (27/170, 15.9%) were the most emphasized categories in the workshop. The questionnaire confirmed the importance of the "follow-up" and "medical history" sections. Prompts were generated per participant and by health care type, incorporating frequently selected responses. The CO-STAR framework was applied to improve prompt clarity and alignment with clinical expectations. Communication emerged as a new category during the workshop and was universally valued in the questionnaire. Conclusions: This study presents a novel, systematic approach to prompt engineering in clinical artificial intelligence applications. By translating qualitative input into structured, individualized prompts, the framework is designed to improve the usability and relevance of artificial intelligence-generated summaries. It proposes a scalable approach for integrating human-centered design into LLM deployment in health care, with the aim of supporting more accurate, context-aware clinical documentation. However, these outcomes remain to be empirically validated; this study is limited to the design and implementation of a human-centered prompt construction pipeline in a specific multicenter setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.