ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Implementing Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Ambient Documentation Technology for Ambulatory Clinicians: An Innovation Evaluation.
Article in Journal of general internal 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.
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
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-enabled "ambient" documentation may reduce clinician administrative burdens and improve care delivery, but implementation in clinical practice is complex.
aimTo evaluate the implementation of commercially available ambient documentation tools in multi-specialty ambulatory clinical workflows at an academic medical center.
settingA large urban academic health system in New York City.
participantsNinety-seven ambulatory clinicians across specialties. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: A multidisciplinary team conducted a 6-month proof-of-concept structured evaluation of two commercially available ambient documentation tools through initial vendor evaluations, technical review and integration with the electronic health record (EHR), clinician training and onboarding, implementation and technical support, and structured evaluation based on objective and key results (OKR) metrics. A single-group, pre-post evaluation of the impact of the tools on clinician EHR-based efficiency was conducted on a subset of participating clinicians. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Compared to the 3-month period immediately prior to initiating the ambient trial, clinicians experienced a 0.35-min-per-note and a 2.07-min-per-day reduction in documentation time. "Vendor B" showed higher utilization rates and superior user experience compared to "Vendor A." Implementation challenges included workflow integration, training resource requirements, data interoperability and analytics, and ongoing technical support needs. DISCUSSION: Ambient documentation shows promise in reducing documentation burden, but its success depends on technical stability and integration, product fit and support for clinicians, and adequate implementation resourcing. A multidisciplinary approach with clear metrics, strong vendor partnership and executive sponsorship, and ongoing technical support enables scalability.
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.