Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42398933›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2026

Real-World Implementation of Large Language Models for Writing Clinical Discharge Summaries Within a Secure Data Environment: Development and Expert Evaluation Study.

Catalina Carenzo, Kathleen Goldsmith, Maite Arribas, Benjamin Atkins, Ina Ko, Ho Lun Chong, Asmita Raja, Aya M Riad, Rachael Lear, Yusuf S Abdullahi and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Catalina CarenzoImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5772-8029
Kathleen GoldsmithImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0792-3253
Maite ArribasImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0182-3493
Benjamin AtkinsImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6883-2802
Ina KoImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1412-9070
Ho Lun ChongImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8313-1791
Asmita RajaImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6223-5054
Aya M RiadImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3296-9353
Rachael LearImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8670-3799
Yusuf S AbdullahiImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2463-1269
Ben GlampsonImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5601-5581
Tim OrchardImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3358-663X
Erik MayerImperial Clinical Analytics, Research and Evaluation (iCARE), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5509-4580

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA discharge summary should be a clinical report that documents a patient's hospital stay, including test results, diagnoses, management, and follow-up. Currently, discharge summaries are written by clinicians who manually locate pertinent information across the electronic health record, of which approximately 80% is free text. This process is time-consuming and may be suitable for automation using large language models.

objectiveThis study developed a template-based prompting system that can produce clinically acceptable discharge summaries, specifically the "clinical summary" and "plan and requested actions" sections, from routinely collected electronic patient records.

methodsThis study used electronic health record data from Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, a network of 5 hospitals in northwest London. It was conducted within the Imperial Secure Data Environment under Data Access and Ethics Committee approval. In total, 52 inpatient encounters were selected by the clinical team to ensure diversity in clinical specialty, reason for admission, complexity, length of stay, and sociodemographic characteristics; 83% (n=43) of the cases were allocated to the development dataset, and 17% (n=9) comprised the test dataset. The system synthesized clinical notes related to an inpatient hospital encounter and used structured template prompts with OpenAI's generative pretrained transformer-4 to generate a discharge summary. The prompt was co-designed across 3 iterations. Resident physicians completed an evaluation form to assess the clinical acceptability of the generated summaries, including the primary outcome (global confidence rating) and secondary outcomes (accuracy, completeness, readability, formatting, sociodemographic bias, and potential clinical harm). Sensitivity analyses assessed the effect of length of stay and admission type (emergency department vs other and surgical vs other) on the primary outcome.

resultsA total of 52 patients (n=32, 62% female) were included, with a mean age of 44.8 (SD 27.1) years and an average length of stay of 15.2 (SD 21.1) days. In the test dataset, 89% (8/9) of generative pretrained transformer-4-generated summaries received a positive global confidence rating ("yes" or "yes, with minor changes"). Secondary outcomes were positive for the "clinical summary" section (8/9, 89% complete and 7/9, 78% accurate) and the "plan and requested actions" section (7/9, 78% complete and 7/9, 78% accurate). Readability, formatting, sociodemographic bias, and potential clinical harm also showed positive results in the test dataset. Sensitivity analyses showed no statistically significant variation in the primary outcome across length of stay or admission type (length of stay: P=.29; surgical admission: P=.99; emergency department admission: P=.15).

conclusionsOur results demonstrate the feasibility of the pipeline, but rigorous statistical evaluation in a larger, adequately powered sample is needed.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligenceclinical decision supportclinical documentationdata securitydischarge summarieselectronic health recordsexpert validation studygenerative pretrained transformerGPThealth information managementlarge language modelsmachine learningnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID42398933
PMCPMC13379688

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.