ArticleDigital health
Acceptance of AI scribes within hospital allied health settings: A mixed methods study.
Article in Digital health. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ambient Artificial Intelligence (AI) medical scribes are emerging technologies designed to streamline clinical documentation. Although promising results have been reported in medical disciplines, limited research has examined their suitability for use in allied health services. Objective: To evaluate clinician acceptance and patient acceptability of an AI scribe within allied health settings at an Australian public hospital and health service. Methods: A mixed-methods design incorporating surveys and semi-structured interviews with allied health clinicians and patients. Results: In total, 97 eligible clinician survey responses were analysed, and 27 clinicians participated in interviews. Most clinicians reported high perceived ease of use, citing the AI scribe's intuitive design and adaptability. However, customisation challenges impacted their overall user experience. Perceived usefulness was also high, with reported improvements in documentation quality, workflow efficiency, patient care, and job satisfaction. Clinicians emphasised the importance of reviewing AI-generated documentation to ensure accuracy and patient safety. They also highlighted that, in certain contexts, the use of AI scribes requires careful consideration to ensure patient care and engagement are maintained and that use with some patients (i.e., those experiencing persecutory delusions involving surveillance) may be contraindicated. While patient sample size was limited (19 surveys, four interviews), data indicated overall comfort with the AI scribe, although concerns were raised regarding data privacy and accuracy. Conclusion: AI scribes show promise for allied health practice, offering multiple benefits recognised by both clinicians and patients. Their effective use may depend on clinician review of generated notes, careful consideration of patient wellbeing, and addressing usability challenges related to customisation and integration. Responding to the concerns raised by both groups may be key to ensuring confident and sustainable adoption.
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.