Nikesh Kotecha

Debadutta Dash, Rahul Thapa, Juan M. Banda et al.

Despite growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) in healthcare, current explorations do not assess the real-world utility and safety of LLMs in clinical settings. Our objective was to determine whether two LLMs can serve information needs submitted by physicians as questions to an informatics consultation service in a safe and concordant manner. Sixty six questions from an informatics consult service were submitted to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 via simple prompts. 12 physicians assessed the LLM responses' possibility of patient harm and concordance with existing reports from an informatics consultation service. Physician assessments were summarized based on majority vote. For no questions did a majority of physicians deem either LLM response as harmful. For GPT-3.5, responses to 8 questions were concordant with the informatics consult report, 20 discordant, and 9 were unable to be assessed. There were 29 responses with no majority on "Agree", "Disagree", and "Unable to assess". For GPT-4, responses to 13 questions were concordant, 15 discordant, and 3 were unable to be assessed. There were 35 responses with no majority. Responses from both LLMs were largely devoid of overt harm, but less than 20% of the responses agreed with an answer from an informatics consultation service, responses contained hallucinated references, and physicians were divided on what constitutes harm. These results suggest that while general purpose LLMs are able to provide safe and credible responses, they often do not meet the specific information need of a given question. A definitive evaluation of the usefulness of LLMs in healthcare settings will likely require additional research on prompt engineering, calibration, and custom-tailoring of general purpose models.

Conor K. Corbin, Rob Maclay, Aakash Acharya et al.

Machine learning (ML) applications in healthcare are extensively researched, but successful translations to the bedside are scant. Healthcare institutions are establishing frameworks to govern and promote the implementation of accurate, actionable and reliable models that integrate with clinical workflow. Such governance frameworks require an accompanying technical framework to deploy models in a resource efficient manner. Here we present DEPLOYR, a technical framework for enabling real-time deployment and monitoring of researcher created clinical ML models into a widely used electronic medical record (EMR) system. We discuss core functionality and design decisions, including mechanisms to trigger inference based on actions within EMR software, modules that collect real-time data to make inferences, mechanisms that close-the-loop by displaying inferences back to end-users within their workflow, monitoring modules that track performance of deployed models over time, silent deployment capabilities, and mechanisms to prospectively evaluate a deployed model's impact. We demonstrate the use of DEPLOYR by silently deploying and prospectively evaluating twelve ML models triggered by clinician button-clicks in Stanford Health Care's production instance of Epic. Our study highlights the need and feasibility for such silent deployment, because prospectively measured performance varies from retrospective estimates. By describing DEPLOYR, we aim to inform ML deployment best practices and help bridge the model implementation gap.

Nigam H. Shah, Nerissa Ambers, Abby Pandya et al.

While large language models (LLMs) can support clinical documentation needs, standalone tools struggle with "workflow friction" from manual data entry. We developed ChatEHR, a system that enables the use of LLMs with the entire patient timeline spanning several years. ChatEHR enables automations - which are static combinations of prompts and data that perform a fixed task - and interactive use in the electronic health record (EHR) via a user interface (UI). The resulting ability to sift through patient medical records for diverse use-cases such as pre-visit chart review, screening for transfer eligibility, monitoring for surgical site infections, and chart abstraction, redefines LLM use as an institutional capability. This system, accessible after user-training, enables continuous monitoring and evaluation of LLM use. In 1.5 years, we built 7 automations and 1075 users have trained to become routine users of the UI, engaging in 23,000 sessions in the first 3 months of launch. For automations, being model-agnostic and accessing multiple types of data was essential for matching specific clinical or administrative tasks with the most appropriate LLM. Benchmark-based evaluations proved insufficient for monitoring and evaluation of the UI, requiring new methods to monitor performance. Generation of summaries was the most frequent task in the UI, with an estimated 0.73 hallucinations and 1.60 inaccuracies per generation. The resulting mix of cost savings, time savings, and revenue growth required a value assessment framework to prioritize work as well as quantify the impact of using LLMs. Initial estimates are $6M savings in the first year of use, without quantifying the benefit of the better care offered. Such a "build-from-within" strategy provides an opportunity for health systems to maintain agency via a vendor-agnostic, internally governed LLM platform.

Tim Ellis-Caleo, Timothy Keyes, Nerissa Ambers et al.

Tumor boards are multidisciplinary conferences dedicated to producing actionable patient care recommendations with live review of primary radiology and pathology data. Succinct patient case summaries are needed to drive efficient and accurate case discussions. We developed a manual AI-based workflow to generate patient summaries to display live at the Stanford Thoracic Tumor board. To improve on this manually intensive process, we developed several automated AI chart summarization methods and evaluated them against physician gold standard summaries and fact-based scoring rubrics. We report these comparative evaluations as well as our deployment of the final state automated AI chart summarization tool along with post-deployment monitoring. We also validate the use of an LLM as a judge evaluation strategy for fact-based scoring. This work is an example of integrating AI-based workflows into routine clinical practice.

Timothy Keyes, Alison Callahan, Abby S. Pandya et al.

Post-deployment monitoring of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in health care is essential to ensure their safety, quality, and sustained benefit-and to support governance decisions about which systems to update, modify, or decommission. Motivated by these needs, we developed a framework for monitoring deployed AI systems grounded in the mandate to take specific actions when they fail to behave as intended. This framework, which is now actively used at Stanford Health Care, is organized around three complementary principles: system integrity, performance, and impact. System integrity monitoring focuses on maximizing system uptime, detecting runtime errors, and identifying when changes to the surrounding IT ecosystem have unintended effects. Performance monitoring focuses on maintaining accurate system behavior in the face of changing health care practices (and thus input data) over time. Impact monitoring assesses whether a deployed system continues to have value in the form of benefit to clinicians and patients. Drawing on examples of deployed AI systems at our academic medical center, we provide practical guidance for creating monitoring plans based on these principles that specify which metrics to measure, when those metrics should be reviewed, who is responsible for acting when metrics change, and what concrete follow-up actions should be taken-for both traditional and generative AI. We also discuss challenges to implementing this framework, including the effort and cost of monitoring for health systems with limited resources and the difficulty of incorporating data-driven monitoring practices into complex organizations where conflicting priorities and definitions of success often coexist. This framework offers a practical template and starting point for health systems seeking to ensure that AI deployments remain safe and effective over time.

Alison Callahan, Duncan McElfresh, Juan M. Banda et al.

The impact of using artificial intelligence (AI) to guide patient care or operational processes is an interplay of the AI model's output, the decision-making protocol based on that output, and the capacity of the stakeholders involved to take the necessary subsequent action. Estimating the effects of this interplay before deployment, and studying it in real time afterwards, are essential to bridge the chasm between AI model development and achievable benefit. To accomplish this, the Data Science team at Stanford Health Care has developed a Testing and Evaluation (T&E) mechanism to identify fair, useful and reliable AI models (FURM) by conducting an ethical review to identify potential value mismatches, simulations to estimate usefulness, financial projections to assess sustainability, as well as analyses to determine IT feasibility, design a deployment strategy, and recommend a prospective monitoring and evaluation plan. We report on FURM assessments done to evaluate six AI guided solutions for potential adoption, spanning clinical and operational settings, each with the potential to impact from several dozen to tens of thousands of patients each year. We describe the assessment process, summarize the six assessments, and share our framework to enable others to conduct similar assessments. Of the six solutions we assessed, two have moved into a planning and implementation phase. Our novel contributions - usefulness estimates by simulation, financial projections to quantify sustainability, and a process to do ethical assessments - as well as their underlying methods and open source tools, are available for other healthcare systems to conduct actionable evaluations of candidate AI solutions.