ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Ambient scribe in general practice: a multi-perspective before-after longitudinal mixed-methods study.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- AI-Assisted Clinical Documentation in Routine Danish General Practice: Quantitative Pre-Post Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Sustaining High Reliability Amid Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Oncology.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026Article
- Designing clinical AI for patient-centered support beyond the visit: the PACT framework for health systems.npj health systems · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High workload among general practitioners (GPs) threatens clinician well-being and quality of care. Ambient scribes offer a potential solution, but evidence on their effectiveness is limited and overlooks the patient perspective. We conducted a prospective multicentre, multi-perspective, before-after longitudinal mixed-methods study on an ambient scribe in the Netherlands with 12 GPs and GPs in training without prior experience with ambient scribes. Outcomes were assessed over a two-day baseline and two-day intervention period. The primary outcome was clinical documentation time and secondary outcomes included total consultation time, documentation quantity and quality, patient and GP experiences, acceptability, and usage. Between December 2024 and July 2025, 535 patient consultations were observed. Clinical documentation time was reduced by 42.7 s per consultation (95% CI - 56.29 to -30.78; p < 0.0001), while total consultation time did not change. Qualitative analyses showed reduced perceived workload among GPs and, for some patients, improved communication. Potential drawbacks were inaccurate summaries, barriers for discussing sensitive information, and interference with the clinician's reasoning process. These findings show that ambient scribing may meaningfully reduce documentation burden and support communication, but further investigation is required to understand and mitigate unintended consequences for quality and accessibility of care.
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.