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

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.

Standing on FURM ground -- A framework for evaluating Fair, Useful, and Reliable AI Models in healthcare systems

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.