Evaluating the Application of ChatGPT in Outpatient Triage Guidance: A Comparative Study

TL;DR

This study evaluates ChatGPT's consistency and reliability in outpatient triage guidance, comparing different versions to understand its potential and limitations in healthcare workflows.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 responses in outpatient triage, highlighting differences in consistency and completeness.

Findings

ChatGPT-4.0 has higher internal response consistency than 3.5.

Between-version response consistency is relatively low.

ChatGPT-3.5 responses tend to be more complete.

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare presents a transformative potential for enhancing operational efficiency and health outcomes. Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have shown their capabilities in supporting medical decision-making. Embedding LLMs in medical systems is becoming a promising trend in healthcare development. The potential of ChatGPT to address the triage problem in emergency departments has been examined, while few studies have explored its application in outpatient departments. With a focus on streamlining workflows and enhancing efficiency for outpatient triage, this study specifically aims to evaluate the consistency of responses provided by ChatGPT in outpatient guidance, including both within-version response analysis and between-version comparisons. For within-version, the results indicate that the internal response consistency for ChatGPT-4.0 is significantly higher than ChatGPT-3.5 (p=0.03) and both have a moderate consistency (71.2% for 4.0 and 59.6% for 3.5) in their top recommendation. However, the between-version consistency is relatively low (mean consistency score=1.43/3, median=1), indicating few recommendations match between the two versions. Also, only 50% top recommendations match perfectly in the comparisons. Interestingly, ChatGPT-3.5 responses are more likely to be complete than those from ChatGPT-4.0 (p=0.02), suggesting possible differences in information processing and response generation between the two versions. The findings offer insights into AI-assisted outpatient operations, while also facilitating the exploration of potentials and limitations of LLMs in healthcare utilization. Future research may focus on carefully optimizing LLMs and AI integration in healthcare systems based on ergonomic and human factors principles, precisely aligning with the specific needs of effective outpatient triage.