Mixed methods study evaluates clinician and patient acceptance of AI scribes, suggesting promising benefits for allied health practice.
Background Ambient Artificial Intelligence (AI) medical scribes are emerging technologies designed to streamline clinical documentation. Although promising results have been reported in medical disciplines, limited research has examined their suitability for use in allied health services. Objective To evaluate clinician acceptance and patient acceptability of an AI scribe within allied health settings at an Australian public hospital and health service. Methods A mixed-methods design incorporating surveys and semi-structured interviews with allied health clinicians and patients. Results In total, 97 eligible clinician survey responses were analysed, and 27 clinicians participated in interviews. Most clinicians reported high perceived ease of use, citing the AI scribe’s intuitive design and adaptability. However, customisation challenges impacted their overall user experience. Perceived usefulness was also high, with reported improvements in documentation quality, workflow efficiency, patient care, and job satisfaction. Clinicians emphasised the importance of reviewing AI-generated documentation to ensure accuracy and patient safety. They also highlighted that, in certain contexts, the use of AI scribes requires careful consideration to ensure patient care and engagement are maintained and that use with some patients (i.e., those experiencing persecutory delusions involving surveillance) may be contraindicated. While patient sample size was limited (19 surveys, four interviews), data indicated overall comfort with the AI scribe, although concerns were raised regarding data privacy and accuracy. Conclusion AI scribes show promise for allied health practice, offering multiple benefits recognised by both clinicians and patients. Their effective use may depend on clinician review of generated notes, careful consideration of patient wellbeing, and addressing usability challenges related to customisation and integration. Responding to the concerns raised by both groups may be key to ensuring confident and sustainable adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ryan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: