Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:This study evaluates and enhances language access services for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) patients in a large urban health system by integrating interpreter services into the Electronic Health Record (EHR), aiming to reduce care disparities and improve the digital experience for both patients and clinicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Using a descriptive evaluation approach, the project assessed barriers to interpreter service usage and developed solutions informed by stakeholder engagement. Emphasis was placed on interfacing the EHR with the vendor platform, using existing devices, tracking utilization, ensuring cost-effectiveness, and implementing the solution across multiple hospitals and outpatient settings. RESULTS DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:After implementation, audio and video interpreter service use rose significantly, with calls increasing from an average of 9700 calls per month in 2022 to over 68 176 calls per month by the end of 2024. Over 14 000 clinicians used the service for more than 121 077 unique patients. Average waiting times for the top ten languages fell below 30 seconds, and user satisfaction was high, with an average interpreter rating of 4.9. Conclusion: The EHR-integrated interpreter service has improved language service access, reduced waiting times and enhanced user satisfaction, marking noteworthy progress in overcoming language barriers and potentially decreasing healthcare disparities for LEP populations. We plan to assess the impact on patient outcomes.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Hospital course (HC) summarization represents an increasingly onerous discharge summary component for physicians. Literature supports large language models (LLMs) for HC summarization, but whether physicians can effectively partner with electronic health record-embedded LLMs to draft HCs is unknown. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:To compare the editing effort required by time-constrained resident physicians to improve LLM- vs physician-generated HCs toward a novel 4Cs (complete, concise, cohesive, and confabulation-free) HC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:Quality improvement study using a convenience sample of 10 internal medicine resident editors, 8 hospitalist evaluators, and randomly selected general medicine admissions in December 2023 lasting 4 to 8 days at New York University Langone Health. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:Residents and hospitalists reviewed randomly assigned patient medical records for 10 minutes. Residents blinded to author type who edited each HC pair (physician and LLM) for quality in 3 minutes, followed by comparative ratings by attending hospitalists. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Editing effort was quantified by analyzing the edits that occurred on the HC pairs after controlling for length (percentage edited) and the degree to which the original HCs' meaning was altered (semantic change). Hospitalists compared edited HC pairs with A/B testing on the 4Cs (5-point Likert scales converted to 10-point bidirectional scales). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 100 admissions, compared with physician HCs, residents edited a smaller percentage of LLM HCs (LLM mean [SD], 31.5% [16.6%] vs physicians, 44.8% [20.0%]; P < .001). Additionally, LLM HCs required less semantic change (LLM mean [SD], 2.4% [1.6%] vs physicians, 4.9% [3.5%]; P < .001). Attending physicians deemed LLM HCs to be more complete (mean [SD] difference LLM vs physicians on 10-point bidirectional scale, 3.00 [5.28]; P < .001), similarly concise (mean [SD], -1.02 [6.08]; P = .20), and cohesive (mean [SD], 0.70 [6.14]; P = .60), but with more confabulations (mean [SD], -0.98 [3.53]; P = .002). The composite scores were similar (mean [SD] difference LLM vs physician on 40-point bidirectional scale, 1.70 [14.24]; P = .46). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:Electronic health record-embedded LLM HCs required less editing than physician-generated HCs to approach a quality standard, resulting in HCs that were comparably or more complete, concise, and cohesive, but contained more confabulations. Despite the potential influence of artificial time constraints, this study supports the feasibility of a physician-LLM partnership for writing HCs and provides a basis for monitoring LLM HCs in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The study aimed to assess the usage and impact of a private and secure instance of a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) application in a large academic health center. The goal was to understand how employees interact with this technology and the influence on their perception of skill and work performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:New York University Langone Health (NYULH) established a secure, private, and managed Azure OpenAI service (GenAI Studio) and granted widespread access to employees. Usage was monitored and users were surveyed about their experiences. RESULTS:Over 6 months, over 1007 individuals applied for access, with high usage among research and clinical departments. Users felt prepared to use the GenAI studio, found it easy to use, and would recommend it to a colleague. Users employed the GenAI studio for diverse tasks such as writing, editing, summarizing, data analysis, and idea generation. Challenges included difficulties in educating the workforce in constructing effective prompts and token and API limitations. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The study demonstrated high interest in and extensive use of GenAI in a healthcare setting, with users employing the technology for diverse tasks. While users identified several challenges, they also recognized the potential of GenAI and indicated a need for more instruction and guidance on effective usage. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The private GenAI studio provided a useful tool for employees to augment their skills and apply GenAI to their daily tasks. The study underscored the importance of workforce education when implementing system-wide GenAI and provided insights into its strengths and weaknesses.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the proficiency of a HIPAA-compliant version of GPT-4 in identifying actionable, incidental findings from unstructured radiology reports of Emergency Department patients. To assess appropriateness of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated, patient-facing summaries of these findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Radiology reports extracted from the electronic health record of a large academic medical center were manually reviewed to identify non-emergent, incidental findings with high likelihood of requiring follow-up, further sub-stratified as "definitely actionable" (DA) or "possibly actionable-clinical correlation" (PA-CC). Instruction prompts to GPT-4 were developed and iteratively optimized using a validation set of 50 reports. The optimized prompt was then applied to a test set of 430 unseen reports. GPT-4 performance was primarily graded on accuracy identifying either DA or PA-CC findings, then secondarily for DA findings alone. Outputs were reviewed for hallucinations. AI-generated patient-facing summaries were assessed for appropriateness via Likert scale. RESULTS:For the primary outcome (DA or PA-CC), GPT-4 achieved 99.3% recall, 73.6% precision, and 84.5% F-1. For the secondary outcome (DA only), GPT-4 demonstrated 95.2% recall, 77.3% precision, and 85.3% F-1. No findings were "hallucinated" outright. However, 2.8% of cases included generated text about recommendations that were inferred without specific reference. The majority of True Positive AI-generated summaries required no or minor revision. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:GPT-4 demonstrates proficiency in detecting actionable, incidental findings after refined instruction prompting. AI-generated patient instructions were most often appropriate, but rarely included inferred recommendations. While this technology shows promise to augment diagnostics, active clinician oversight via "human-in-the-loop" workflows remains critical for clinical implementation.

BACKGROUND:Healthcare crowdsourcing events (e.g. hackathons) facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and encourage innovation. Peer-reviewed research has not yet considered a healthcare crowdsourcing event focusing on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), which generates text in response to detailed prompts and has vast potential for improving the efficiency of healthcare organizations. Our event, the New York University Langone Health (NYULH) Prompt-a-thon, primarily sought to inspire and build AI fluency within our diverse NYULH community, and foster collaboration and innovation. Secondarily, we sought to analyze how participants' experience was influenced by their prior GenAI exposure and whether they received sample prompts during the workshop. METHODS:Executing the event required the assembly of an expert planning committee, who recruited diverse participants, anticipated technological challenges, and prepared the event. The event was composed of didactics and workshop sessions, which educated and allowed participants to experiment with using GenAI on real healthcare data. Participants were given novel "project cards" associated with each dataset that illuminated the tasks GenAI could perform and, for a random set of teams, sample prompts to help them achieve each task (the public repository of project cards can be found at https://github.com/smallw03/NYULH-Generative-AI-Prompt-a-thon-Project-Cards). Afterwards, participants were asked to fill out a survey with 7-point Likert-style questions. RESULTS:Our event was successful in educating and inspiring hundreds of enthusiastic in-person and virtual participants across our organization on the responsible use of GenAI in a low-cost and technologically feasible manner. All participants responded positively, on average, to each of the survey questions (e.g., confidence in their ability to use and trust GenAI). Critically, participants reported a self-perceived increase in their likelihood of using and promoting colleagues' use of GenAI for their daily work. No significant differences were seen in the surveys of those who received sample prompts with their project task descriptions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The first healthcare Prompt-a-thon was an overwhelming success, with minimal technological failures, positive responses from diverse participants and staff, and evidence of post-event engagement. These findings will be integral to planning future events at our institution, and to others looking to engage their workforce in utilizing GenAI.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:By law, patients have immediate access to discharge notes in their medical records. Technical language and abbreviations make notes difficult to read and understand for a typical patient. Large language models (LLMs [eg, GPT-4]) have the potential to transform these notes into patient-friendly language and format. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To determine whether an LLM can transform discharge summaries into a format that is more readable and understandable. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This cross-sectional study evaluated a sample of the discharge summaries of adult patients discharged from the General Internal Medicine service at NYU (New York University) Langone Health from June 1 to 30, 2023. Patients discharged as deceased were excluded. All discharge summaries were processed by the LLM between July 26 and August 5, 2023. INTERVENTIONS/UNASSIGNED:A secure Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant platform, Microsoft Azure OpenAI, was used to transform these discharge summaries into a patient-friendly format between July 26 and August 5, 2023. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Outcomes included readability as measured by Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and understandability using Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) scores. Readability and understandability of the original discharge summaries were compared with the transformed, patient-friendly discharge summaries created through the LLM. As balancing metrics, accuracy and completeness of the patient-friendly version were measured. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Discharge summaries of 50 patients (31 female [62.0%] and 19 male [38.0%]) were included. The median patient age was 65.5 (IQR, 59.0-77.5) years. Mean (SD) Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was significantly lower in the patient-friendly discharge summaries (6.2 [0.5] vs 11.0 [1.5]; P < .001). PEMAT understandability scores were significantly higher for patient-friendly discharge summaries (81% vs 13%; P < .001). Two physicians reviewed each patient-friendly discharge summary for accuracy on a 6-point scale, with 54 of 100 reviews (54.0%) giving the best possible rating of 6. Summaries were rated entirely complete in 56 reviews (56.0%). Eighteen reviews noted safety concerns, mostly involving omissions, but also several inaccurate statements (termed hallucinations). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:The findings of this cross-sectional study of 50 discharge summaries suggest that LLMs can be used to translate discharge summaries into patient-friendly language and formats that are significantly more readable and understandable than discharge summaries as they appear in electronic health records. However, implementation will require improvements in accuracy, completeness, and safety. Given the safety concerns, initial implementation will require physician review.

Background: The introduction of electronic workflows has allowed for the flow of raw uncontextualized clinical data into medical documentation. As a result, many electronic notes have become replete of "noise" and deplete clinically significant "signals." There is an urgent need to develop and implement innovative approaches in electronic clinical documentation that improve note quality and reduce unnecessary bloating. Objective: This study aims to describe the development and impact of a novel set of templates designed to change the flow of information in medical documentation. Methods: This is a multihospital nonrandomized prospective improvement study conducted on the inpatient general internal medicine service across 3 hospital campuses at the New York University Langone Health System. A group of physician leaders representing each campus met biweekly for 6 months. The output of these meetings included (1) a conceptualization of the note bloat problem as a dysfunction in information flow, (2) a set of guiding principles for organizational documentation improvement, (3) the design and build of novel electronic templates that reduced the flow of extraneous information into provider notes by providing link outs to best practice data visualizations, and (4) a documentation improvement curriculum for inpatient medicine providers. Prior to go-live, pragmatic usability testing was performed with the new progress note template, and the overall user experience was measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Primary outcome measures after go-live include template utilization rate and note length in characters. Results: In usability testing among 22 medicine providers, the new progress note template averaged a usability score of 90.6 out of 100 on the SUS. A total of 77% (17/22) of providers strongly agreed that the new template was easy to use, and 64% (14/22) strongly agreed that they would like to use the template frequently. In the 3 months after template implementation, general internal medicine providers wrote 67% (51,431/76,647) of all inpatient notes with the new templates. During this period, the organization saw a 46% (2768/6191), 47% (3505/7819), and 32% (3427/11,226) reduction in note length for general medicine progress notes, consults, and history and physical notes, respectively, when compared to a baseline measurement period prior to interventions. Conclusions: A bundled intervention that included the deployment of novel templates for inpatient general medicine providers significantly reduced average note length on the clinical service. Templates designed to reduce the flow of extraneous information into provider notes performed well during usability testing, and these templates were rapidly adopted across all hospital campuses. Further research is needed to assess the impact of novel templates on note quality, provider efficiency, and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We previously developed and validated a predictive model to help clinicians identify hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who may be ready for discharge given their low risk of adverse events. Whether this algorithm can prompt more timely discharge for stable patients in practice is unknown. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to estimate the effect of displaying risk scores on length of stay (LOS). METHODS: We integrated model output into the electronic health record (EHR) at four hospitals in one health system by displaying a green/orange/red score indicating low/moderate/high-risk in a patient list column and a larger COVID-19 summary report visible for each patient. Display of the score was pseudo-randomized 1:1 into intervention and control arms using a patient identifier passed to the model execution code. Intervention effect was assessed by comparing LOS between intervention and control groups. Adverse safety outcomes of death, hospice, and re-presentation were tested separately and as a composite indicator. We tracked adoption and sustained use through daily counts of score displays. RESULTS: Enrolling 1,010 patients from May 15, 2020 to December 7, 2020, the trial found no detectable difference in LOS. The intervention had no impact on safety indicators of death, hospice or re-presentation after discharge. The scores were displayed consistently throughout the study period but the study lacks a causally linked process measure of provider actions based on the score. Secondary analysis revealed complex dynamics in LOS temporally, by primary symptom, and hospital location. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: An AI-based COVID-19 risk score displayed passively to clinicians during routine care of hospitalized adults with COVID-19 was safe but had no detectable impact on LOS. Health technology challenges such as insufficient adoption, nonuniform use, and provider trust compounded with temporal factors of the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to the null result. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04570488.