ArticleJournal of medical systems2025
Understanding Clinician Perceptions of GenAI: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Clinical Documentation Tasks.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Evidence on artificial intelligence-assisted clinical documentation and healthcare workers' emotional wellbeing at work: a scoping review.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- A Controlled Single-Speaker Evaluation of Ambient Voice Technologies' Speech-to-Text Function Using Narrated Surgical Case-Reports.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- For the record: a narrative review of ambient voice technology in clinical documentation for dentistry and wider healthcare.British dental journal · 2026Review
- Generative AI in healthcare: redefining clinical practice through digital transformation.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Evaluating Medical Students' Perceptions of AI-Assisted Clinical Documentation (CarePilot): Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Role reconstruction among double-qualified nursing educators in the generative AI era: a qualitative study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This mixed-methods study evaluated clinicians' user experience (UX) with Generative AI (GenAI) in Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems across three clinical documentation tasks (Information Extraction, Summarization, and Speech-to-Text) at varying levels of user supervision (low, medium, high), focusing on workflow improvements, safety, and acceptable automation levels. Using conceptual prototyping in a usability study framework, we evaluated how incorporating GenAI into EHR could support the three documentation tasks at varying automation levels. A total of 38 clinicians interacted with the prototype and completed a questionnaire on task relevance, perceived importance, desired automation level, and EHR satisfaction. Both quantitative (descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis tests, Spearman correlations) and qualitative (thematic) analyses were conducted with equal priority to explore preferences, perceived safety, and practical requirements. Clinicians showed positive reception to GenAI integration, particularly for streamlining documentation. While task relevance and importance were strongly correlated, EHR satisfaction did not significantly predict automation acceptance. Medium automation emerged as the preferred level, considered "safe with caution". Five key themes emerged from qualitative analysis: efficiency and quality benefits; system reliability concerns; safety and medico-legal considerations; automation bias and loss of nuance; and deployment requirements including adjustable settings and oversight. While clinicians welcome GenAI-driven documentation, they prefer moderate automation to balance efficiency with clinical control. Successful integration requires addressing safety concerns, conducting real-world trials, and mitigating potential biases and medico-legal challenges. These findings suggest a cautious but optimistic path forward for AI integration in EHR systems, emphasizing the importance of maintaining clinician oversight while leveraging automation benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.