Deployment and Evaluation of an EHR-integrated, Large Language Model-Powered Tool to Triage Surgical Patients

📅 2026-03-17
📈 Citations: 0
Influential: 0
📄 PDF
🤖 AI Summary
This study addresses the limited adoption of evidence-based surgical comanagement (SCM) due to the inefficiency of manual patient screening. To overcome this barrier, we developed and deployed SCM Navigator—the first large language model (LLM) tool integrated directly into an electronic health record (EHR) system—that automatically recommends SCM eligibility by synthesizing preoperative clinical notes, structured data, and clinical rules. A human-in-the-loop workflow was established, wherein clinicians review and validate model recommendations, enabling collaborative triage. Evaluated on 6,193 patients, the system achieved 94% sensitivity and 74% specificity. Post-hoc analysis revealed that most misclassifications stemmed from ambiguities or variations in clinical criteria and workflow practices rather than model deficiencies, thereby demonstrating the safety and feasibility of this AI-assisted triage approach in real-world clinical settings.

Technology Category

Application Category

📝 Abstract
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.
Problem

Research questions and friction points this paper is trying to address.

Surgical co-management
patient triage
automated screening
perioperative care
clinical workflow
Innovation

Methods, ideas, or system contributions that make the work stand out.

Large Language Model
EHR-integrated AI
Surgical Co-Management
Human-in-the-loop
Clinical Triage Automation
🔎 Similar Papers
No similar papers found.
J
Jane Wang
1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
T
Timothy Keyes
2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA; 3. Stanford Health Care, Technology and Digital Solutions, Palo Alto, CA; 4. Division of Computational Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
A
April S Liang
1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
S
Stephen P Ma
1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
J
Jason Shen
2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
Jerry Liu
Jerry Liu
Stanford University
N
Nerissa Ambers
5. Stanford Health Care, Nursing Informatics, Palo Alto, CA
A
Abby Pandya
3. Stanford Health Care, Technology and Digital Solutions, Palo Alto, CA
R
Rita Pandya
1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
J
Jason Hom
1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
N
Natasha Steele
1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
Jonathan H Chen
Jonathan H Chen
Stanford Department of Medicine
Medical Data ScienceInternal MedicineAIMachine LearningClinical Decision Support
K
Kevin Schulman
1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA; 4. Division of Computational Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA