Abstract
Ambient AI scribes are reshaping clinical documentation and clinician-patient interactions. These tools were initially tested in low-acuity ambulatory settings. However, their deployment in diverse care settings raises new challenges. This perspective examines the clinical, technical, and ethical implications of ambient AI scribes in diverse settings. With thoughtful integration, ambient AI scribes can evolve into valuable assistive tools to clinicians. Responsible use of these tools can improve interactions with patients, enhance safety, reduce clinician burden, and improve care continuity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Nahar, J. K. & Kachnowski, S. Current and potential applications of ambient artificial intelligence. Mayo Clin. Proc. Digit. Health 1, 241–246 (2023).
Arndt, B. G. et al. Tethered to the EHR: primary care physician workload assessment using EHR event log data and time-motion observations. Ann. Fam. Med. 15, 419–426 (2017).
Rotenstein, L. et al. Virtual scribes and physician time spent on electronic health records. JAMA Netw. Open 7, e2413140 (2024).
Saag, H. S., Shah, K., Jones, S. A., Testa, P. A. & Horwitz, L. I. Pajama time: working after work in the electronic health record. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 34, 1695–1696 (2019).
Budd, J. Burnout related to electronic health record use in primary care. J. Prim. Care Community Health 14, 21501319231166921 (2023).
Shah, S. J. et al. Physician perspectives on ambient AI scribes. JAMA Netw. Open 8, e251904 (2025).
Duggan, M. J. et al. Clinician experiences with ambient scribe technology to assist with documentation burden and efficiency. JAMA Netw. Open 8, e2460637 (2025).
Tierney, A. A. et al. Ambient artificial intelligence scribes to alleviate the burden of clinical documentation. NEJM Catal. 5, CAT.23.0404 (2024).
Misurac, J., Knake, L. A. & Blum, J. M. The effect of ambient artificial intelligence notes on provider burnout. Appl. Clin. Inform. 16, 252–258 (2025).
Stults, C. D. et al. Evaluation of an ambient artificial intelligence documentation platform for clinicians. JAMA Netw. Open 8, e258614 (2025).
Tierney, A. A. et al. Ambient artificial intelligence scribes: learnings after 1 year and over 2.5 million uses. NEJM Catal. 6, CAT.25.0040 (2025).
Haberle, T. et al. The impact of nuance DAX ambient listening AI documentation: a cohort study. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. JAMIA 31, 975–979 (2024).
Ha, E. et al. Evaluating the usability, technical performance, and accuracy of artificial intelligence scribes for primary care: competitive analysis. JMIR Hum. Factors 12, e71434 (2025).
Wang, H. et al. An evaluation framework for ambient digital scribing tools in clinical applications. npj Digit. Med. 8, 358 (2025).
Shah, S. J. et al. Ambient artificial intelligence scribes: physician burnout and perspectives on usability and documentation burden. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 32, 375–380 (2025).
Street, R. L. et al. Provider interaction with the electronic health record: the effects on patient-centered communication in medical encounters. Patient Educ. Couns. 96, 315–319 (2014).
Gerke, S., Simon, D. A. & Roman, B. R. Liability risks of ambient clinical workflows with artificial intelligence for clinicians, hospitals, and manufacturers. JCO Oncol. Pract. 0, OP-24-01060 (2025).
Leung, T. I., Coristine, A. J. & Benis, A. AI scribes in health care: balancing transformative potential with responsible integration. JMIR Med. Inform. 13, e80898 (2025).
Lawson, E. The Global Primary Care Crisis. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 73, 3 (2022).
Duong, D. & Vogel, L. Ontario, Quebec and Alberta lead record family medicine residency vacancies. CMAJ 195, E557–E558 (2023).
Mishra, P., Kiang, J. C. & Grant, R. W. Association of medical scribes in primary care with physician workflow and patient experience. JAMA Intern. Med. 178, 1467–1472 (2018).
Ma, S. P. et al. Ambient artificial intelligence scribes: utilization and impact on documentation time. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. JAMIA 32, 381–385 (2025).
Sanderson, A. L. & Burns, J. P. Clinical documentation for intensivists: the impact of diagnosis documentation. Crit. Care Med. 48, 579–587 (2020).
Gkiala, A. Assessing the correct documentation of time and physician information on medical records in the emergency department of Queen’s Hospital: an audit and re-audit. Cureus 14, e33000 (2022).
Blome, A., Yu, D., Lu, X. & Schreyer, K. E. Pitfalls of extensive documentation in the emergency department. Ochsner J 20, 299–302 (2020).
Davidson, S. J., Zwemer, F. L., Nathanson, L. A., Sable, K. N. & Khan, A. N. G. A. Where’s the beef? The promise and the reality of clinical documentation. Acad. Emerg. Med. Off. J. Soc. Acad. Emerg. Med. 11, 1127–1134 (2004).
Nates, J. L. et al. ICU admission, discharge, and triage guidelines: a framework to enhance clinical operations, development of institutional policies, and further research. Crit. Care Med. 44, 1553–1602 (2016).
ScribeAmerica to Attend the ACEP Scientific Assembly 2023. ScribeAmerica https://www.scribeamerica.com/press_release/scribeamerica-to-attend-the-acep-scientific-assembly-2023/.
Dai, W. et al. Developing ICU clinical behavioral atlas using ambient intelligence and computer vision. NEJM AI 2, AIoa2400590 (2025).
Martin-Gill, C. et al. Systematic review of evidence-based guidelines for prehospital care. Prehosp. Emerg. Care 27, 131–143 (2023). 2022.
Sasseville, M. et al. The impact of Ai scribes on streamlining clinical documentation: a systematic review. Healthcare 13, 1447 (2025).
Bongurala, A. R., Save, D., Virmani, A. & Kashyap, R. Transforming health care with artificial intelligence: redefining medical documentation. Mayo Clin. Proc. Digit. Health 2, 342–347 (2024).
Health workforce. https://www.who.int/health-topics/health-workforce.
Rule, A. et al. Comparing scribed and non-scribed outpatient progress notes. AMIA. Annu. Symp. Proc. 2021, 1059–1068 (2022).
Reuel, A. et al. BetterBench: assessing AI benchmarks, uncovering issues, and establishing best practices. in Proc. 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Vol. 37 21763–21813 (Curran Associates Inc., 2025).
Bracken, A. et al. Artificial Intelligence (AI) - Powered documentation systems in healthcare: a systematic review. J. Med. Syst. 49, 28 (2025).
Omiye, J. A., Lester, J. C., Spichak, S., Rotemberg, V. & Daneshjou, R. Large language models propagate race-based medicine. npj Digit. Med. 6, 1–4 (2023).
Johri, S. et al. An evaluation framework for clinical use of large language models in patient interaction tasks. Nat. Med. 31, 77–86 (2025).
Bedi, S. et al. MedHELM: holistic evaluation of large language models for medical tasks. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.23802 (2025).
McCradden, M. D. et al. CANAIRI: the Collaboration for Translational Artificial Intelligence Trials in healthcare. Nat. Med. 31, 9–11 (2025).
Kwong, J. C. C. et al. The silent trial - the bridge between bench-to-bedside clinical AI applications. Front. Digit. Health 4, 929508 (2022).
Ma, R. et al. Multimodal machine learning enables AI chatbot to diagnose ophthalmic diseases and provide high-quality medical responses. npj Digit. Med. 8, 64 (2025).
Schiff, G. D. AI-driven clinical documentation — Driving out the chitchat? N. Engl. J. Med. 392, 1877–1879 (2025).
Cohen, I. G., Ritzman, J. & Cahill, R. F. Ambient listening—legal and ethical issues. JAMA Netw. Open 8, e2460642 (2025).
England, N. H. S. NHS England » Guidance on the use of AI-enabled ambient scribing products in health and care settings. https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guidance-on-the-use-of-ai-enabled-ambient-scribing-products-in-health-and-care-settings/.
Aboy, M., Minssen, T. & Vayena, E. Navigating the EU AI Act: implications for regulated digital medical products. npj Digit. Med. 7, 237 (2024).
Robertson, C. et al. Diverse patients’ attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence (AI) in diagnosis. PLOS Digit. Health 2, e0000237 (2023).
Svarovsky, T. Having difficult conversations: the advanced practitioner’s role. J. Adv. Pract. Oncol. 4, 47–52 (2013).
Felzmann, H., Fosch-Villaronga, E., Lutz, C. & Tamò-Larrieux, A. Towards transparency by design for artificial intelligence. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 3333–3361 (2020).
Joseph, A. et al. Minor flow disruptions, traffic-related factors and their effect on major flow disruptions in the operating room. BMJ Qual. Saf. 28, 276–283 (2019).
Malhotra, S., Jordan, D. & Patel, V. L. Workflow modeling in critical care: piecing your own puzzle. AMIA. Annu. Symp. Proc. 2005, 480–484 (2005).
Lyell, D. & Coiera, E. Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 24, 423–431 (2017).
Proctor, E. et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm. Policy Ment. Health 38, 65–76 (2011).
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M. & Boles, S. M. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am. J. Public Health 89, 1322–1327 (1999).
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank Stephanie C. Bernthal, M.S., for designing the figures in this manuscript. This work was supported by the Duke-NUS Signature Research Programme funded by the Ministry of Health, Singapore. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of the Ministry of Health. This work is supported in part by generous funds from Dalio Philanthropies. The content expressed in this publication are those of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Dalio Philanthropies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J.W.O. and A.T. contributed equally. Initial conceptualization: J.W.O., A.T., Z.L., J.Y.E.T., and J.C.L.O. Drafting of the first manuscript: J.W.O., A.T., Z.L., L.M.R., J.D.O., J.Y.E.T., S.M.O., and J.C.L.O. Critical revision of the manuscript: J.W.O., A.T., Z.L., L.M.R., J.D.O., J.Y.E.T., S.M.O., R.F.R.S., Y.K., J.C.K.L., J.C.L.O., and N.L. All authors have read, reviewed, and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Author J.C.L.O is an associate editor of npj digital medicine. N.L. is an editorial board member of npj digital medicine. J.C.L.O and N.L. were not involved in the journal’s review of, or decisions related to, this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ohde, J.W., Thompson, A., Liu, Z. et al. Barriers and opportunities of scaling ambient AI scribes for clinical documentation across diverse healthcare settings. npj Digit. Med. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-02554-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-02554-0
