Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We conducted an exploratory mixed-methods study of clinician attitudes and editing behaviours towards artificial intelligence (AI)-generated discharge summaries. Five clinicians reviewed three summaries and indicated what changes they would make and why, answered a questionnaire, engaged in semi-structured interviews and viewed screen mock-ups of additional editing features. All clinicians expressed positive sentiments and saw AI as saving time. Edits were driven by professional pride and etiquette, most of which were not corrections of factual errors but optimisation of structure, coherence, conciseness, reasoning and tone. Tension arose between desire for personalised content versus potential benefits of standardisation. Various novel editing features were seen as expediting summary review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yukita et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: