arXiv preprint ·
Emergency Department Revisit Quality Review Screening: Exploring Human Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence Support
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Emergency Department (ED) return visits are commonly reviewed for quality assurance, but are often limited (e.g., to revisits within 48-72 hours) to increase actionable finding yield while minimizing chart review burden. Those limitations may lead to missed quality improvement opportunities. Methods: We conducted an exploratory, retrospective study of randomly selected ED visits to a multihospital health system having an ED revisit within 1-14 days to the same health system. Given only each visit's primary diagnosis, raters (2-3 clinicians and GPT-4 large language model [LLM]) assessed characteristics of the diagnosis pairs, including the "target": whether a pair warranted further assessment. Informed by rater response analyses, an algorithm leveraging an LLM-populated knowledge graph ("KGA") was created to automatically screen for potentially concerning pairs, then preliminarily assessed. Results: 99 diagnosis pairs were included. GPT-4 responses poorly correlated to clinician raters, rating nearly all (94%) pairs as warranting follow-up (4.4-13.3 times more than clinicians). However, prompt engineering was minimal. Among clinician raters, revisit medical gravity was consistently significantly associated with the target, while a differential diagnosis/complication composite was significantly associated on unadjusted, but not adjusted (though less powered) analysis. The KGA achieved 83-100% positive predictive value for at least one clinician rater determining further assessment was warranted based on the diagnosis pair. Conclusion: These results can inform next steps for improving screening with LLMs like ChatGPT. Further research is warranted to validate this preliminary work's finding that the KGA may enable enhancing the scope and yield of screening without substantially increasing reviewer workload.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computers & Society
Watermarks Without Verification: AI Text Watermarking After the EU AI Act
terms.txt: A Consent and Compensation Protocol for Agentic Web Access
A Unifying Perspective on Probabilities as Model Predictions
(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?
With a Thermomix You Lose the Ability to Cook: A Kitchen Machine Analogy for Applications of Generative AI in Education
Get the few papers worth your time in Computers & Society every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.