ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
The Ambulatory Patient Experience with Ambient Artificial Intelligence Scribes: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe effect of ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes on patient experience remains understudied and has been largely limited to closed-ended surveys. Qualitative studies are needed to more fully explore how ambient AI scribes influence patient experience. The aim of this study was to explore how ambient AI scribes influence the patient experience and to identify factors that improve patients' comfort with these tools. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using a semi-structured interview guide that captured key patient experience domains from a literature review. We recruited patients from numerous ambulatory specialties (e.g., dermatology, primary care) whose clinicians were participating in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial of an ambient AI scribe implementation at an academic medical center. We deductively and inductively drew patterns in patients' reported experiences and the factors that contributed to patients' comfort with these tools.
resultsTwenty patients were included in our sample before thematic saturation occurred. Patients reported improvements in patient experience through increased respect for patients' preferences (e.g., fewer distractions), improved thoroughness of visit notes, and increased time spent answering patients' questions. Factors influencing comfort included demographic factors (e.g., exposure to similar technologies), lack of saliency of the device, lack of privacy-related concerns, positive pre-existing patient-clinician relationships, and anticipated benefits to care.
conclusionAmbient AI scribes may improve the patient experience through improved patient-clinician verbal, non-verbal, and written communication. These findings contribute to our understanding how these tools shape the patient experience. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42897388What 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.