Deployment and Evaluation of an EHR-integrated, Large Language Model-Powered Tool to Triage Surgical Patients
Authors: Jane Wang, Timothy Keyes, April S Liang, Stephen P Ma, Jason Shen, Jerry Liu, Nerissa Ambers, Abby Pandya, Rita Pandya, Jason Hom, Natasha Steele, Jonathan H Chen, Kevin Schulman
Organizations: Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA · Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA · Stanford Health Care, Technology and Digital Solutions, Palo Alto, CA · Division of Computational Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA · Stanford Health Care, Nursing Informatics, Palo Alto, CA
Surgical co-management (SCM) is an evidence-based model in which hospitalists jointly manage medically complex perioperative patients alongside surgical teams. Despite its clinical and financial value, SCM is limited by the need to manually identify eligible patients. To determine whether SCM triage can be automated, we conducted a prospective, unblinded study at Stanford Health Care in which an LLM-based, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated triage tool (SCM Navigator) provided SCM recommendations followed by physician review. Using pre-operative documentation, structured data, and clinical criteria for perioperative morbidity, SCM Navigator categorized patients as appropriate, not appropriate, or possibly appropriate for SCM. Faculty indicated their clinical judgment and provided free-text feedback when they disagreed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were measured using physician determinations as a reference. Free-text reasons were thematically categorized, and manual chart review was conducted on all false-negative cases and 30 randomly selected cases from the largest false-positive category. Since deployment, 6,193 cases have been triaged, of which 1,582 (23%) were recommended for hospitalist consultation. SCM Navigator displayed high sensitivity (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) and moderate specificity (0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.77). Post-hoc chart review suggested most discrepancies reflect modifiable gaps in clinical criteria, institutional workflow, or physician practice variability rather than LLM misclassification, which accounted for 2 of 19 (11%) false-negative cases. These findings demonstrate that an LLM-powered, EHR-integrated, human-in-the-loop AI system can accurately and safely triage surgical patients for SCM, and that AI-enabled screening tools can augment and potentially automate time-intensive clinical workflows.
Triage in the emergency department (ED) is a sequential decision process that unfolds turn by turn. Existing evaluations of large language models (LLMs) for triage use completed retrospective records and report performance close to that of physicians. We implement a methodology for evaluating LLMs on sequential triage, the task of predicting a triage acuity label from a growing prefix of a nurse-patient conversation. We evaluate six LLMs at five sequential checkpoints on two corpora: 425 LLM-generated (SIMULATED) and 50 physician-authored (CLINICIAN) conversations, both labelled under the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). Every model, measured by quadratic weighted kappa (QWK), degrades from moderate-to-substantial agreement on completed records to fair-to-moderate agreement at every sequential checkpoint. Controlled perturbations show that the label at every checkpoint is anchored on the chief complaint exchanges, and prompting interventions fail to lift this plateau. Models extract clinically relevant content from later turns, yet the surprisal of the true label rises across the checkpoints. So the model fails to integrate the evidence. Three expert clinicians on the same conversations reach a QWK of 0.887-0.929, while the best model reaches 0.295. Predictions concentrate at ESI-2 and ESI-3, and models agree with each other more than with the ground truth, so ensembling worsens the failure. Deploying LLMs for ED triage based on offline benchmarks alone misses this sequential failure.
Dipankar Srirag, Haokai Zhao, Ashutosh Kumar +6
University of New South Wales, Sydney · Independent Researcher · St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney +2
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings, it is critical to evaluate their reliability under realistic variation in clinical text. We study this question in clinical triage, comparing LLMs to practicing physicians under text perturbations that preserve the underlying clinical setting. We introduce a benchmark of over 6,000 clinical scenarios, 7,000 physician annotations, and 225,000 model responses. Using this benchmark, we make two key observations. First, LLMs are more likely than physicians to recommend unnecessary care at baseline, and this tendency increases under perturbed inputs. Further, we find that LLM recommendations are more sensitive to gender and tone perturbations than human recommendations. Together, these results demonstrate that LLMs can vary under clinically irrelevant textual changes, highlighting the need for deployment-oriented evaluations grounded in expert physician behavior.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science · Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Department of Computer Science
Telephone triage is a safety critical task: from a brief intake note, a nurse must decide whether a caller needs an ambulance, an emergency department, an appointment, or self care at home. Queried directly, large language models (LLMs) are unreliable: they over-escalate routine cases and cannot justify their recommendations against an auditable clinical standard. We present the Automated LLM-based Medical Triage System (ALLMTS), which grounds every disposition in the same commercially maintained telehealth guidelines nurses use. Rather than asking an LLM to triage, ALLMTS makes it execute the guideline: it selects the appropriate guideline and evaluates its triage assessment questions. The disposition follows deterministically from the first positive answer, using the same traversal rule a nurse follows. We evaluate ALLMTS on 566 synthetic, expert-validated scenarios spanning 14 dispositions and designed to test specific guideline questions. ALLMTS achieves 0.95 accuracy, compared with 0.47 for a raw-LLM baseline. On a curated 50-scenario subset released as an open benchmark, ALLMTS reaches 0.98 accuracy, on par with the 0.944 correct disposition rate that a five nurse expert panel recorded on those same scenarios. Critically, on that subset the baselines have over-triage rates of up to 0.50 (0.44 on the full dataset), whereas ALLMTS reduces the over-triage rate to at most 0.02 while maintaining low under-triage. These results support coupling LLM language understanding with executable clinical guidelines for triage from intake notes.
Michał Remigiusz Janiszewski, Artur Stopa, Łukasz Lenkiewicz +2
Vstorm, R&D, Poland · Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wrocław, Poland · Faculty of Computer Science, AGH University of Kraków, Kraków, Poland +1