Enhancing communication and clinical reasoning in medical education: Building virtual patients with generative AI
Open accessAbstract
Generative AI describes any form of artificial intelligence (AI) that can produce new text, images, video or other content. Large language models (LLMs) are a form of generative AI which can generate human-like text. They are trained on large amounts of text data and have been made popular by the launch of publicly available chatbots, including ChatGPT and Google Bard.1 Virtual patients simulate real-life clinical scenarios and can be used to teach knowledge, communication skills and clinical reasoning.2 Given the challenges learners can face in accessing opportunities to practice communication skills in person, particularly in busy healthcare environments, we aimed to develop a collection of realistic virtual patients using LLM technology. The virtual patients enable learners to practise their communication and clinical reasoning skills using a chatbot interface hosted on the Geeky Medics platform. A database of patient scripts was created, reflecting common patient presentations (e.g. chest pain, breathlessness). Each script consisted of a condensed summary of the patient's presentation, including relevant past medical and psychosocial history. Utilising OpenAI's GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 large language models, we developed an interactive chat interface that allows learners to engage with virtual patients generated from the patient scripts. Users can interact with the virtual patient via text or voice. This interaction mimics a real clinical encounter, facilitating natural conversation with the patient. After the consultation, learners can request an immediate AI-powered review of their transcript, which assesses the breadth and depth of their questioning to provide actionable feedback. Examples of feedback include commending areas covered well and highlighting important missed sections of the patient's history. Since their introduction on the Geeky Medics platform, learners have conducted over 45,000 consultations with virtual patients. Implementation challenges included user feedback about occasional 'hallucinations' and off-topic responses from the virtual patients. User feedback has generally been favourable, highlighting the independent aspect of the interactions and the opportunity for deliberate, repeated practice of complex communication skills, such as taking a sexual history. Our findings demonstrate the viability of using LLM technology, specifically GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, to create realistic virtual patients. Despite challenges like 'hallucinations' and off-topic responses, the high volume of consultations indicates strong engagement and potential for this tool to enhance communication and clinical reasoning skills. This approach offers a scalable, accessible way to supplement traditional clinical training, especially in environments with limited direct patient contact.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Potter and Jefferies showed that a GPT-driven agent could serve as a generative virtual patient for communication training.
“For example, Potter and Jefferies showed that a GPT-driven agent could serve as a generative “virtual patient” for communication training41;”
From A large language model digital patient system enhances ophthalmology history taking skills (2025) · cites this paper as [41]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A large language model digital patient system enhances ophthalmology history taking skills
Luo, M.-J., Bi, S., Pang, J., Liu, L., Tsui, C.-K., Lai, Y., Chen, W., Yang, Y., Xu, K., Zhao, L., et al. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01841-6 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
“While there have been feasibility studies exploring the use of LLMs in medical education 18,30 , such as those by Potter & Jefferies 41 and Yao et al. 42 , these studies primarily served as proofs-of-concept without rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comprehensive validation.”
Weisman, D., Sugarman, A., Huang, Y. M., Gelberg, L., Ganz, P. A., & Comulada, W. S. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/65670 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Shen, M., Shen, Y., & Shi, Z. (2025) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104612 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Potter, L., & Jefferies, C.
- Venue
- Future Healthcare Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-04
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 100043
- ISSN
- 2514-6645 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4395085952
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 5
- FWCI
- 2.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Future Healthcare Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- virtual patients, generative AI, large language models, clinical communication skills, clinical reasoning, medical education, chatbots, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, AI-generated feedback, sexual history taking, hallucinations, simulation-based training
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review