Automating Responses to Patient Portal Messages Using Generative AI.

IF 2.2 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-25 DOI:10.1055/a-2565-9155
Amarpreet Kaur, Alexander Budko, Katrina Liu, Eric Eaton, Bryan D Steitz, Kevin B Johnson
{"title":"Automating Responses to Patient Portal Messages Using Generative AI.","authors":"Amarpreet Kaur, Alexander Budko, Katrina Liu, Eric Eaton, Bryan D Steitz, Kevin B Johnson","doi":"10.1055/a-2565-9155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patient portals bridge patient and provider communications but exacerbate physician and nursing burnout. Large language models (LLMs) can generate message responses that are viewed favorably by health care professionals/providers (HCPs); however, these studies have not included diverse message types or new prompt-engineering strategies.Our goal is to investigate and compare the quality and precision of GPT-generated message responses versus real doctor responses across the spectrum of message types within a patient portal.We used prompt engineering techniques to craft synthetic provider responses tailored to adult primary care patients. We enrolled a sample of primary care providers in a cross-sectional study to compare authentic with synthetic patient portal message responses generated by GPT-3.5-turbo, July 2023 version (GPT). The survey assessed each response's empathy, relevance, medical accuracy, and readability on a scale from 0 to 5. Respondents were asked to identify responses that were GPT-generated versus provider-generated. Mean scores for all metrics were computed for subsequent analysis.A total of 49 HCPs participated in the survey (59% completion rate), comprising 16 physicians and 32 advanced practice providers (APPs). In comparison to responses generated by real doctors, GPT-generated responses scored statistically significantly higher than doctors in two of the four parameters: empathy (<i>p</i> < 0.05) and readability (<i>p</i> < 0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was observed for relevance and accuracy (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Although readability scores were significantly different, the absolute difference was small, and the clinical significance of this finding remains uncertain.Our findings affirm the potential of GPT-generated message responses to achieve comparable levels of empathy, relevance, and readability to those found in typical responses crafted by HCPs. Additional studies should be done within provider workflows and with careful evaluation of patient attitudes and concerns related to the ethics as well as the quality of generated responses in all settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":" ","pages":"718-731"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12310298/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2565-9155","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patient portals bridge patient and provider communications but exacerbate physician and nursing burnout. Large language models (LLMs) can generate message responses that are viewed favorably by health care professionals/providers (HCPs); however, these studies have not included diverse message types or new prompt-engineering strategies.Our goal is to investigate and compare the quality and precision of GPT-generated message responses versus real doctor responses across the spectrum of message types within a patient portal.We used prompt engineering techniques to craft synthetic provider responses tailored to adult primary care patients. We enrolled a sample of primary care providers in a cross-sectional study to compare authentic with synthetic patient portal message responses generated by GPT-3.5-turbo, July 2023 version (GPT). The survey assessed each response's empathy, relevance, medical accuracy, and readability on a scale from 0 to 5. Respondents were asked to identify responses that were GPT-generated versus provider-generated. Mean scores for all metrics were computed for subsequent analysis.A total of 49 HCPs participated in the survey (59% completion rate), comprising 16 physicians and 32 advanced practice providers (APPs). In comparison to responses generated by real doctors, GPT-generated responses scored statistically significantly higher than doctors in two of the four parameters: empathy (p < 0.05) and readability (p < 0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was observed for relevance and accuracy (p > 0.05). Although readability scores were significantly different, the absolute difference was small, and the clinical significance of this finding remains uncertain.Our findings affirm the potential of GPT-generated message responses to achieve comparable levels of empathy, relevance, and readability to those found in typical responses crafted by HCPs. Additional studies should be done within provider workflows and with careful evaluation of patient attitudes and concerns related to the ethics as well as the quality of generated responses in all settings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
初级保健提供者接受生成AI对患者门户信息的响应。
背景:患者门户桥梁病人和提供者的沟通,但加剧医生和护理倦怠。大型语言模型(llm)可以生成医疗保健专业人员认为有利的消息响应;然而,这些研究并没有包括多样化的信息类型或新的提示工程策略。我们的目标是调查和比较gpt生成的消息响应的质量和精度,以及患者门户中各种消息类型的真实医生响应。方法:我们使用即时工程技术来制作针对成人初级保健患者的综合提供者反应。我们在一项横断面研究中招募了初级保健提供者的样本,以比较真实的和合成的患者门户信息响应,由GPT-3.5-turbo生成,2023年7月版本(GPT)。该调查评估了每个回答的同理心、相关性、医学准确性和可读性,评分范围从0到5。受访者被要求确定是gpt生成的还是提供者生成的响应。计算所有指标的平均得分,用于后续分析。结果:共有49名卫生保健提供者参与调查,完成率59%,其中16名内科医生和32名高级执业医师(app)。与真实医生的回答相比,gpt生成的回答在四个参数中的两个得分显著高于医生:共情(p 0.05)。虽然可读性评分有显著差异,但绝对差异很小,该发现的临床意义尚不确定。结论:我们的研究结果证实了gpt生成的信息响应在移情、相关性和可读性方面的潜力,可以与医疗保健提供者制作的典型响应相媲美。应在提供者的工作流程内进行进一步的研究,并仔细评估患者的态度和与伦理有关的关切,以及在所有情况下产生的反应的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the Fitness for Purpose of Primary Care Data from EHRs for Automated Antimicrobial Prescribing Audits. Object-Centric Process Mining of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Workflows: Identifying Bottlenecks and Optimization Opportunities. Evaluation of ChatGPT and Gemini in Answering Patient Questions after Gynecologic Surgery. Industry Electives in Clinical Informatics Fellowship: Early Experiences from a Multi-Institution Survey. Improving Clinicians' Digital and Artificial Intelligence-related Competence Within Healthcare Organizations in the United States: A Strategic Framework Proposal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1