ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Evaluation of Socio-Technical Mechanisms Shaping AI Scribe Documentation Failures: A Netnographic Study.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) scribes are increasingly adopted to address electronic health record (EHR) documentation burden. Although early evaluations report perceived efficiency gains and reduced after-hours work, findings on documentation quality and safety remain mixed. Reported issues, including omissions, attribution mistakes, and hallucinated content, raise concerns about potential clinical, administrative and medico-legal risks. Existing evaluations largely focus on performance metrics, offering limited insight into the socio-technical conditions shaping real-world experiences and outcomes.
aimTo examine how interacting socio-technical conditions influence AI scribe use, reported problems and associated risk implications in clinical documentation. METHODOLOGY: A netnographic analysis was conducted of 2267 relevant data segments from 952 documents across 162 Reddit threads (2023-2025) drawn from clinician-oriented communities. Data were collected using a structured query design via the Python Reddit API Wrapper. Data were analysed using an inductive-abductive qualitative approach and organised through a socio-technical lens across technology, organisation, person and environment domains.
resultsContributors' accounts suggested that reported AI scribe problems were associated with interacting technological constraints, including template rigidity, integration gaps and reliability issues; organisational governance and billing pressures; environmental time constraints; and individual verification practices. These conditions appeared to operate through three mediating mechanisms: adoption and configuration practices, workflow coupling and documentation targets. Reported problems included content-related issues, such as misattribution, hallucinations and omissions, as well as workflow disruptions, including latency, crashes and copy-and-paste friction. Clinicians described potential clinical, administrative and medico-legal risks as contingent on integration quality, governance clarity and review capacity.
conclusionAI scribe safety is not solely a function of model accuracy. The findings suggest that documentation problems may arise through socio-technical interactions that influence whether errors are identified, corrected or carried forward. Safe deployment requires strengthening integration, governance and verification processes alongside technical performance.
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.