Scholarlink

<p>With the increasing need for rehabilitation, efficient triage is crucial. This study aims to explore the performance of the distributing rehabilitation patients (DRP) tool, ChatGPT, and outpatient doctors in rehabilitation patient triage, and to compare their strengths and limitations. This is a multicenter cross-sectional study. A total of 300 rehabilitation patients were selected from 27 medical institutions in 15 cities. Patients assessed by three methods: doctor assessment, ChatGPT, and the DRP tool. Three groups were set according to different methods: Doctor Group, ChatGPT Group, and Tool Group. Triage outcomes: outpatient rehabilitation, primary healthcare institutions inpatient, secondary hospital inpatient, tertiary hospital inpatient, and nursing homes or long-term care institutions inpatient. The consistency of triage was analyzed. Significant differences were observed between Doctor Group and both ChatGPT Group and Tool Group (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.01; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.01), no significant difference was observed between ChatGPT Group and Tool Group (<i>P</i> = 0.29). Consistency analysis revealed fair consistency between Doctor Group and both Tool Group and ChatGPT Group. Tool Group and ChatGPT Group showed good consistency. Percentage consistency showed that Tool Group and ChatGPT Group achieved the highest rate of agreement, at 63.67%. This study revealed differences between the DRP tool, ChatGPT, and traditional triage methods. The DRP tool may be more suitable for rehabilitation triage.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of triage performance among DRP tool, ChatGPT, and outpatient rehabilitation doctors

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月23日

查看全文
  • Yucong Zou,
  • Ruixue Ye,
  • Yan Gao,
  • Jing Zhou,
  • Yawei Li,
  • Wenshi Chen,
  • Fubing Zha,
  • Yulong Wang

摘要

With the increasing need for rehabilitation, efficient triage is crucial. This study aims to explore the performance of the distributing rehabilitation patients (DRP) tool, ChatGPT, and outpatient doctors in rehabilitation patient triage, and to compare their strengths and limitations. This is a multicenter cross-sectional study. A total of 300 rehabilitation patients were selected from 27 medical institutions in 15 cities. Patients assessed by three methods: doctor assessment, ChatGPT, and the DRP tool. Three groups were set according to different methods: Doctor Group, ChatGPT Group, and Tool Group. Triage outcomes: outpatient rehabilitation, primary healthcare institutions inpatient, secondary hospital inpatient, tertiary hospital inpatient, and nursing homes or long-term care institutions inpatient. The consistency of triage was analyzed. Significant differences were observed between Doctor Group and both ChatGPT Group and Tool Group (P < 0.01; P < 0.01), no significant difference was observed between ChatGPT Group and Tool Group (P = 0.29). Consistency analysis revealed fair consistency between Doctor Group and both Tool Group and ChatGPT Group. Tool Group and ChatGPT Group showed good consistency. Percentage consistency showed that Tool Group and ChatGPT Group achieved the highest rate of agreement, at 63.67%. This study revealed differences between the DRP tool, ChatGPT, and traditional triage methods. The DRP tool may be more suitable for rehabilitation triage.