ArticleJMIR research protocols2025
Health Care Professionals' Experiences and Opinions About Generative AI and Ambient Scribes in Clinical Documentation: Protocol for a Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (GenAI) leverages large language models (LLMs) that are transforming health care. Specialized ambient GenAI tools, like Nuance Dax, Speke, and Tandem Health, "listen" to consultations and generate clinical notes. Medical-focused models, like Med-PaLM, provide tailored health care insights. GenAI's capability to summarize complex data and generate responses in various conversational styles or literacy levels makes it particularly valuable since it has the potential to alleviate the burden of clinical documentation on health care professionals (HCPs). While GenAI may prove to be helpful, offering novel benefits, it comes with its own set of challenges. The quality of the source data can introduce biases, leading to skewed recommendations or outright false information (so-called hallucinations). In addition, due to the conversational nature of chatbot responses, users may be susceptible to misinformation, posing risks to both safety and privacy. Therefore, careful implementation and rigorous oversight are essential to ensure accuracy, ethical integrity, and alignment with clinical standards. Despite these advances, currently, no review has investigated HCPs' experiences and opinions about GenAI in clinical documentation. Yet, such a perspective is crucial to better understand how these technologies can be safely and ethically adopted and implemented in clinical practice.
objectiveWe aim to present the protocol for a scoping review exploring HCPs' experiences and opinions about GenAI and ambient scribes in clinical documentation.
methodsThis scoping review will be carried out following the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews) checklist. Relevant papers will be searched for in PubMed, IEEE Xplore, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science. The review will include studies published between January 2023 and September 2025. Studies will be included that represent original peer-reviewed work that explores HCPs' experiences and opinions about the use of GenAI or ambient scribes for clinical documentation. Data extraction will include publication type, country, sample characteristics, clinical setting, study aim, study design, research question, and key findings. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
resultsThe results will be presented as a narrative synthesis structured along the key themes of the evidence mapped. Data will be collated and presented in charts and tabular format. Findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed scoping review.
conclusionsThis will be the first scoping review that considers HCPs' experiences and opinions about GenAI and ambient scribes in clinical documentation. The results will clarify how HCPs use-or avoid using-GenAI in daily health care work. This insight will help address perceived benefits, risks, expectations, and uncertainties. It may also reveal key research gaps in the field. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/73602.
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.