ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Ambient AI in primary care: an exploratory mixed methods survey of UK general practitioners.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine UK general practitioners' (GPs) adoption of ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes and to assess user-reported error rates, workflow impact and consent practices in primary care.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide online mixed-methods survey of GPs recruited via Doctors.net.uk. Detailed analyses of use, errors and workflow impact focused on current users of ambient AI scribes.
resultsIn August 2025, of 1003 respondents, 14% (n=141) reported current use of ambient AI scribes, 39% (n=396) intended to adopt them soon and 46% (n=466) had no plans to use them. Among users (n=141), Heidi Health predominated (86%). Most reported efficiency gains: 80% (n=112) reported reduced time spent on documentation and 70% (n=99) reduced cognitive load. Documentation quality was judged positively, with 55% (n=78) rating outputs as better than standard notes. Errors were common but usually minor: 32% (n=45) reported errors often/always, including 14% (n=20) with significant-to-critical implications. Errors were most frequent in multiparty consultations (38%), complex histories (35%) and non-English encounters (31%). Consent practices varied: 63% (n=89) routinely sought consent, with ≤10% of patients declining. Free-text responses (21% of users) highlighted benefits for workflow, alongside concerns about accuracy, ethics and system integration. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that ambient AI scribes deliver meaningful efficiency gains and improved perceived documentation quality, but introduce non-trivial risks related to accuracy, equity and medicolegal accountability. The uneven performance in complex and multilingual consultations raises particular concerns about potential exacerbation of healthcare disparities.
conclusionAmbient AI scribes are already in use across UK primary care. Proactive regulation, consistent consent practices and independent evaluation, including patient perspectives, are urgently needed to ensure safe, equitable and sustainable implementation.
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.