Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42712320›Full record

ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025

Clinical AI Scribes in primary care: accuracy, error severity and implications for clinical practice.

Thomas C Draper, Timothy Cox, Kathryn Lamb-Riddell, Luigi Andrea Moretti, John McCormick, Stephen Trowell, Janice Kiely, Richard Luxton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Thomas C DraperUniversity of the West of England, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6466-8796
Timothy CoxUniversity of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Kathryn Lamb-RiddellUniversity of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Luigi Andrea MorettiUniversity of the West of England, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0009-0002-6180-0565
John McCormickNHS England and NHS Improvement South West, Taunton, England, UK.
Stephen TrowellNHS England and NHS Improvement South West, Taunton, England, UK.
Janice KielyUniversity of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Richard LuxtonUniversity of the West of England, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the performance of commercially available Clinical Artificial Intelligence Scribes (CAISs), assessing their accuracy, potential clinical impact of errors, and documentation quality, given growing concerns around errors and safety. Methods and analysis: Seven CAIS products were investigated, using eight standardised clinical consultation scenarios recorded as audio. CAIS-generated summaries were assessed against a human-validated transcript and evaluated for errors (omissions, factual inaccuracies and hallucinations). Error severity was rated by medical doctors, generating a novel severity-weighted mpact Score (linear and exponential variants), to quantify potential clinical impact. Further analysis using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-10) (a validated clinical note quality score) reinforced the findings. Results: Omissions dominated error counts (83.8%, p<<0.001), with CAISs varying widely in error frequency and severity, and a median of 1-6 omissions per consultation (depending on CAIS). Although less frequent, hallucinations and factual inaccuracies were more often clinically serious. No tested CAIS produced error-free summaries. The Impact Score highlighted clinical severity, notably amplifying the significance of less frequent but high-severity errors. PDQI-10 analysis indicated summaries were weakest in succinctness and organisation, but strong in consistency and clinical usefulness. Conclusions: The CAISs demonstrate high levels of summarisation accuracy. However, there is great disparity between the currently available CAIS products and, while some perform well, none are perfect. Clinicians should therefore maintain vigilance, particularly checking omitted psychosocial details and medications, and scrutinising plausible-sounding insertions. Purchasers and regulators should be aware of the significant performance disparities identified, reinforcing the need for careful evaluation and selection of CAIS products.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDelivery of Health CareDocumentationInformaticsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID42712320
PMCPMC13528381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.