Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Post-Discharge Clinical Action Extraction

The work in this paper evaluates zero-shot and few-shot large language models (LLMs) for safety-critical clinical action extraction using the CLIP discharge-note dataset, with particular emphasis on transitions of care and post-discharge patient safety. To manage the complexity of clinical documentation, we introduce a two-stage extraction framework that decomposes discharge notes, that are written in narrative form, into fine-grained, explicitly actionable clinical tasks through a staged prompting strategy. Our contributions include a systematic assessment of generative LLMs for clinical action extraction, a detailed comparison between general-purpose LLMs and task-specific supervised BERT-based models, and an analysis of annotation inconsistencies across different action categories. We show that contemporary LLMs achieve performance comparable to or exceeding supervised models on binary actionability detection, while supervised baselines retain a meaningful advantage on fine-grained multi-label category classification, despite the absence of task-specific fine-tuning and under strict data-privacy constraints. Qualitative error analysis reveals that many failures stem from misalignment between model reasoning and dataset annotation conventions, particularly in cases involving implicit clinical actions and rigid structural labeling rules. These results indicate that reported performance reflects model limitations due to lack of clinical reasoning, that is not captured by plain annotations. Labels without rationales make it impossible to distinguish clinical reasoning failures from annotation convention mismatches. Advancing clinical NLP requires reasoning-annotated datasets that document why specific spans are actionable, not merely which spans were labeled, enabling proper evaluation of model clinical understanding.

Automated Auditing of Hospital Discharge Summaries for Care Transitions

Incomplete or inconsistent discharge documentation is a primary driver of care fragmentation and avoidable readmissions. Despite its critical role in patient safety, auditing discharge summaries relies heavily on manual review and is difficult to scale. We propose an automated framework for large-scale auditing of discharge summaries using locally deployed Large Language Models (LLMs). Our approach operationalizes core transition-of-care requirements such as follow-up instructions, medication history and changes, patient information and clinical course, etc. into a structured validation checklist of questions based on DISCHARGED framework. Using adult inpatient summaries from the MIMIC-IV database, we utilize a privacy-preserving LLM to identify the presence, absence, or ambiguity of key documentation elements. This work demonstrates the feasibility of scalable, automated clinical auditing and provides a foundation for systematic quality improvement in electronic health record documentation.