TrachGPT: Appraisal of tracheostomy care recommendations from an artificial intelligent Chatbot.

Oluwatobiloba Ayo-Ajibola, Ryan J Davis, Matthew E Lin, Neelaysh Vukkadala, Karla O'Dell, Mark S Swanson, Michael M Johns, Elizabeth A Shuman
Author Information
  1. Oluwatobiloba Ayo-Ajibola: Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA. ORCID
  2. Ryan J Davis: Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA. ORCID
  3. Matthew E Lin: Department of Head and Neck Surgery University of California Los Angeles Los Angeles California USA. ORCID
  4. Neelaysh Vukkadala: Department of Head and Neck Surgery University of California Los Angeles Los Angeles California USA.
  5. Karla O'Dell: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Southern California Caruso Los Angeles California USA.
  6. Mark S Swanson: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Southern California Caruso Los Angeles California USA.
  7. Michael M Johns: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Southern California Caruso Los Angeles California USA.
  8. Elizabeth A Shuman: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Southern California Caruso Los Angeles California USA. ORCID

Abstract

Objective: Safe home tracheostomy care requires engagement and troubleshooting by patients, who may turn to online, AI-generated information sources. This study assessed the quality of ChatGPT responses to such queries.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, ChatGPT was prompted with 10 hypothetical tracheostomy care questions in three domains (complication management, self-care advice, and lifestyle adjustment). Responses were graded by four otolaryngologists for appropriateness, accuracy, and overall score. The readability of responses was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level (FKRGL). Descriptive statistics and ANOVA testing were performed with statistical significance set to  < .05.
Results: On a scale of 1-5, with 5 representing the greatest appropriateness or overall score and a 4-point scale with 4 representing the highest accuracy, the responses exhibited moderately high appropriateness (mean = 4.10, SD = 0.90), high accuracy (mean = 3.55, SD = 0.50), and moderately high overall scores (mean = 4.02, SD = 0.86). Scoring between response categories (self-care recommendations, complication recommendations, lifestyle adjustments, and special device considerations) revealed no significant scoring differences. Suboptimal responses lacked nuance and contained incorrect information and recommendations. Readability indicated college and advanced levels for FRE (Mean = 39.5, SD = 7.17) and FKRGL (Mean = 13.1, SD = 1.47), higher than the sixth-grade level recommended for patient-targeted resources by the NIH.
Conclusion: While ChatGPT-generated tracheostomy care responses may exhibit acceptable appropriateness, incomplete or misleading information may have dire clinical consequences. Further, inappropriately high reading levels may limit patient comprehension and accessibility. At this point in its technological infancy, AI-generated information should not be solely relied upon as a direct patient care resource.

Keywords

References

  1. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2024 Jan 12;23(1):95-98 [PMID: 37094282]
  2. Cureus. 2023 Apr 8;15(4):e37281 [PMID: 37038381]
  3. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004 Apr;130(4):401-8 [PMID: 15096421]
  4. Br J Nurs. 2007 Apr 26-May 9;16(8):476-9 [PMID: 17551431]
  5. Pan Afr Med J. 2022 Jun 15;42:124 [PMID: 36060849]
  6. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Jun;75(2):848-856 [PMID: 36817016]
  7. Patient. 2018 Apr;11(2):175-191 [PMID: 28914429]
  8. J Clin Nurs. 1999 Nov;8(6):631-42 [PMID: 10827609]
  9. Arch Trauma Res. 2014 Apr 30;3(2):e18161 [PMID: 25147778]
  10. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 May;466(5):1245-50 [PMID: 18324452]
  11. J Cancer Educ. 2021 Oct;36(5):941-949 [PMID: 32189219]
  12. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996 Mar;54(3):292-5; discussion 295-6 [PMID: 8600235]
  13. Am J Otolaryngol. 2023 Jul-Aug;44(4):103873 [PMID: 37004317]
  14. J Transl Med. 2023 Apr 19;21(1):269 [PMID: 37076876]
  15. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013 Dec;131(12):1610-6 [PMID: 24178035]
  16. BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Aug 29;19(1):146 [PMID: 30157770]
  17. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2010 Feb;26(1):33-43 [PMID: 19910195]
  18. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Nov;278(11):4519-4523 [PMID: 33656585]
  19. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2023 Nov;221(5):701-704 [PMID: 37341179]
  20. Health Serv Res. 2006 Jun;41(3 Pt 1):819-36 [PMID: 16704514]
  21. BMJ. 2004 Mar 6;328(7439):564 [PMID: 15001506]
  22. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Feb;152(2):272-8 [PMID: 25450410]
  23. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2017 Oct;30:29-34 [PMID: 29031310]
  24. Health Educ Behav. 2006 Jun;33(3):352-73 [PMID: 16699125]
  25. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Dec;74(Suppl 3):5207-5216 [PMID: 36742676]
  26. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Jun 1;149(6):556-558 [PMID: 37103921]
  27. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1994;5(2):99-111 [PMID: 8043732]
  28. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017 Nov;26(6): [PMID: 28004448]
  29. Pak J Med Sci. 2023 Mar-Apr;39(2):605-607 [PMID: 36950398]
  30. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000 Oct;38(5):509-12 [PMID: 11010784]
  31. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994 Feb;32(1):3-5 [PMID: 8136336]
  32. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000 Oct;123(4):495-500 [PMID: 11020193]
  33. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006 Apr;3(2):A36 [PMID: 16539777]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0tracheostomycareresponsesmayinformationappropriatenesshighrecommendationsaccuracyoverallSD = 0patientAI-generatedstudyChatGPT10complicationself-carelifestylescoreReadingFREFKRGLscale5representingmoderatelymean = 4levelsartificialObjective:SafehomerequiresengagementtroubleshootingpatientsturnonlinesourcesassessedqualityqueriesMethods:cross-sectionalpromptedhypotheticalquestionsthreedomainsmanagementadviceadjustmentResponsesgradedfourotolaryngologistsreadabilityevaluatedusingFleschEaseFlesch-KincaidGradeLevelDescriptivestatisticsANOVAtestingperformedstatisticalsignificanceset<05Results:1-5greatest4-point4highestexhibited90mean = 35550scores0286ScoringresponsecategoriesadjustmentsspecialdeviceconsiderationsrevealedsignificantscoringdifferencesSuboptimallackednuancecontainedincorrectReadabilityindicatedcollegeadvancedMean = 39SD = 717Mean = 131SD = 147highersixth-gradelevelrecommendedpatient-targetedresourcesNIHConclusion:ChatGPT-generatedexhibitacceptableincompletemisleadingdireclinicalconsequencesinappropriatelyreadinglimitcomprehensionaccessibilitypointtechnologicalinfancysolelyreliedupondirectresourceTrachGPT:AppraisalintelligentChatbotintelligenceeducationheadneckcancerknowledge

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.