ArticleJMIR AI2026
Ambient AI Scribes and Emergency Department Documentation Burden: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinician burnout has reached crisis levels in emergency medicine, with clinical documentation burden identified as a central contributing factor. Ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes offer a promising approach to reduce this burden, but objective evidence in the emergency department (ED) setting remains limited, and prior reports have been constrained by short observation windows and low adoption.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the association between ambient AI scribe use and on-shift documentation time during a 13-month staged rollout in a busy ED, accounting for physician- and patient-level factors.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary academic ED from February 2025 to March 2026. The analytic cohort comprised 10,344 encounters managed by 100 attending physicians across 4 ED care settings. We restricted analysis to encounters managed by a single attending physician and excluded those with human scribes. The comparison group comprised encounters in which the ambient AI scribe was not used; use was determined entirely at attending physician discretion on an encounter-by-encounter basis. The primary outcome was on-shift documentation time derived from electronic health record audit logs. We used mixed-effects linear models with physician random intercepts to adjust for patient and encounter characteristics.
resultsAmbient AI scribe use was associated with a 72.6-second reduction in on-shift documentation time per encounter (95% CI 63.8-81.4; P<.001). The effect was similar in magnitude for high-use physicians (use rates of ≥18.2%, which was the cohort mean; -71.6 seconds) and low or moderate users (-64.2 seconds), with no statistically significant difference (P=.51). Note character count decreased by 690 characters (95% CI 273-1107; P=.001); after-shift documentation time increased modestly by 9.1 seconds (95% CI 2.9-15.3; P=.004). Negative control outcomes were largely null, and a within-clinician placebo permutation test yielded a distribution centered at 0 (mean -0.8 seconds), inconsistent with the observed effect arising from confounding alone.
conclusionsIn this single-center analysis, ambient AI scribe use was associated with a statistically significant reduction in on-shift documentation time (P<.001), equivalent to approximately 24 minutes per 8-hour shift if used across 20 encounters. These findings extend prior descriptive work with adjusted inferential evidence and support the clinical relevance of ambient AI scribes for ED documentation burden, although the magnitude of benefit varies by physician, patient, and workflow factors.
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.