ArticleCureus2025
Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Documentation: A Cross-Sectional Study of Healthcare Professionals.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Student Competency in Outpatient Documentation: Insights From the 2025 CERA Clerkship Directors Study.Family 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used across healthcare, yet its role in everyday medical documentation remains uncertain. This study explored the current use, perceptions, and readiness for AI integration among healthcare professionals within a tertiary trauma unit in the United Kingdom.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted between August and September 2025 using Microsoft Forms (Redmond, USA). The questionnaire assessed AI familiarity, current and intended use, perceived safety and ethics, and awareness of institutional policies. Quantitative and qualitative responses were analysed descriptively.
resultsSixty-three healthcare professionals completed the survey, including consultants (n = 3, 5%), registrars (n = 12, 19%), core trainees (n = 16, 25%), foundation doctors (n = 6, 10%), and allied health professionals (n = 24, 38%). Familiarity with AI tools was highest among registrars and core trainees and lowest among consultants. While only 52% (n = 33) had used AI for clinical or administrative work, 70% (n = 44) indicated they would do so if officially approved. Participants perceived AI as potentially useful but raised concerns about data security (n = 47, 75%), clinical inaccuracy (n = 40, 63%), and accountability (n = 38, 60%). Institutional guidance was rare (n = 7, 11%), though most respondents supported formal training (n = 43, 68%) and regulation (n = 54, 86%).
conclusionClinicians across all grades recognise AI's potential to improve documentation efficiency but remain cautious about safety and governance. Adoption is currently driven by junior and mid-career clinicians, highlighting the need for structured education, clear policies, and responsible oversight to support safe and ethical AI integration into clinical workflows.
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.