ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Use of AI scribes in UK primary care: a survey of general practitioners.
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 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.
- Beyond productivity: aBMJ digital health & AI · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
UK general practice is increasingly adopting ambient voice technology ("AI scribes") for summarising and documenting medical consultations without clear regulation and implementation guidance. The aim of this study was to examine current use and perceptions of AI scribes among UK GPs, and to identify GP, practice, and population factors associated with their adoption. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of UK GPs (n = 598) to examine current use, perceptions, and factors associated with adoption, analysed using logistic regression. AI scribes were used by 40% of GPs, with an additional 23% reporting past use. Use ranged from 5 to 100% of consultations (mean 60%). Adoption was more likely among men (OR = 1.64), GPs working in private practice (OR = 2.88) and 5-6 clinical sessions weekly (OR = 2.17), those with more experience (OR = 1.68), and GP trainers (OR = 3.10). Efficiency and timeliness were widely perceived benefits, while concerns about safety and medicolegal risks were common, particularly among non-users. Use of AI scribes in the UK is relatively high despite regulatory issues and recent official cease communication. Local population characteristics were not associated with use, but use varied significantly depending on GP characteristics. Selective use within practices and patient perspectives warrant further investigation to ensure equitable use of AI scribes.
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.