ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Clinician Perspectives on Ambient AI Scribes in the Intensive Care Unit: Qualitative Interview Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In intensive care unit (ICU) settings, structured team-based communication, such as multidisciplinary rounds, handoffs, and goals-of-care discussions, is foundational to high-quality care. However, accurately documenting these complex discussions in the medical record remains a challenge due to time pressures, documentation burdens, and competing clinical demands. Ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, which passively transcribe and summarize spoken interactions, offer a potential solution to assist ICU clinicians with documentation. Yet, little is known about how ICU clinicians perceive the integration of these tools into their high-stakes, collaborative workflows. Objective: This study explores clinicians' perceptions of integrating ambient AI scribes into structured team-based ICU discussions, including multidisciplinary rounds, handoffs and transitions of care, and goals-of-care discussions, with the broader goal of informing the implementation of these scribes into real-world ICU clinical workflows. Methods: Interviews and focus groups were conducted with ICU clinicians, including nurses, attendings, trainees (residents/fellows), respiratory therapists, and advanced practice practitioners, who routinely participate in structured ICU discussions. Transcripts were analyzed using grounded theory to identify documentation needs, barriers to documentation, and considerations for the implementation of ambient AI scribes in the ICU setting. Results: A total of 52 individuals, including 18 ICU attendings, 5 advanced practice practitioners, 10 ICU trainees, 9 ICU nurses, and 10 ICU respiratory therapists, participated. Clinicians emphasized the importance of accurate documentation, but noted persistent barriers such as time constraints, documentation burden, and competing teaching and patient care responsibilities. Clinicians expressed enthusiasm about ambient AI scribes' potential to reduce documentation burden and improve quality, but requested personalization of outputs, robust consent protocols, and transparency around data use. Participants viewed ambient AI scribes as a promising tool to enhance both documentation fidelity and communication quality in ICU settings. Successful implementation may be contingent upon transparent data governance, specialty-specific customization, and sustained efforts to build clinician trust. Conclusions: ICU clinicians were optimistic about the potential of ambient AI scribes to ease documentation burden and improve the capture of critical clinical discussions, but expressed concerns over transparency regarding data use. Successful implementation may depend on clinician training, customization of output, and transparent institutional policies on data use and consent.
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.