Ambient AI in primary care: an exploratory mixed methods survey of UK general practitioners.

IF 6.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Charlotte Blease, Anna Kharko, Carolina Garcia Sanchez, David Navarro, Brian McMillan, Jens Gaab, Cosima Locher, Enrico Coiera
{"title":"Ambient AI in primary care: an exploratory mixed methods survey of UK general practitioners.","authors":"Charlotte Blease, Anna Kharko, Carolina Garcia Sanchez, David Navarro, Brian McMillan, Jens Gaab, Cosima Locher, Enrico Coiera","doi":"10.1136/bmjhci-2025-101847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine UK general practitioners' (GPs) adoption of ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes and to assess user-reported error rates, workflow impact and consent practices in primary care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a nationwide online mixed-methods survey of GPs recruited via Doctors.net.uk. Detailed analyses of use, errors and workflow impact focused on current users of ambient AI scribes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In August 2025, of 1003 respondents, 14% (n=141) reported current use of ambient AI scribes, 39% (n=396) intended to adopt them soon and 46% (n=466) had no plans to use them. Among users (n=141), Heidi Health predominated (86%). Most reported efficiency gains: 80% (n=112) reported reduced time spent on documentation and 70% (n=99) reduced cognitive load. Documentation quality was judged positively, with 55% (n=78) rating outputs as better than standard notes. Errors were common but usually minor: 32% (n=45) reported errors often/always, including 14% (n=20) with significant-to-critical implications. Errors were most frequent in multiparty consultations (38%), complex histories (35%) and non-English encounters (31%). Consent practices varied: 63% (n=89) routinely sought consent, with ≤10% of patients declining. Free-text responses (21% of users) highlighted benefits for workflow, alongside concerns about accuracy, ethics and system integration.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Findings suggest that ambient AI scribes deliver meaningful efficiency gains and improved perceived documentation quality, but introduce non-trivial risks related to accuracy, equity and medicolegal accountability. The uneven performance in complex and multilingual consultations raises particular concerns about potential exacerbation of healthcare disparities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ambient AI scribes are already in use across UK primary care. Proactive regulation, consistent consent practices and independent evaluation, including patient perspectives, are urgently needed to ensure safe, equitable and sustainable implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9050,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Health & Care Informatics","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13331185/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Health & Care Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2025-101847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To examine UK general practitioners' (GPs) adoption of ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes and to assess user-reported error rates, workflow impact and consent practices in primary care.

Methods: We conducted a nationwide online mixed-methods survey of GPs recruited via Doctors.net.uk. Detailed analyses of use, errors and workflow impact focused on current users of ambient AI scribes.

Results: In August 2025, of 1003 respondents, 14% (n=141) reported current use of ambient AI scribes, 39% (n=396) intended to adopt them soon and 46% (n=466) had no plans to use them. Among users (n=141), Heidi Health predominated (86%). Most reported efficiency gains: 80% (n=112) reported reduced time spent on documentation and 70% (n=99) reduced cognitive load. Documentation quality was judged positively, with 55% (n=78) rating outputs as better than standard notes. Errors were common but usually minor: 32% (n=45) reported errors often/always, including 14% (n=20) with significant-to-critical implications. Errors were most frequent in multiparty consultations (38%), complex histories (35%) and non-English encounters (31%). Consent practices varied: 63% (n=89) routinely sought consent, with ≤10% of patients declining. Free-text responses (21% of users) highlighted benefits for workflow, alongside concerns about accuracy, ethics and system integration.

Discussion: Findings suggest that ambient AI scribes deliver meaningful efficiency gains and improved perceived documentation quality, but introduce non-trivial risks related to accuracy, equity and medicolegal accountability. The uneven performance in complex and multilingual consultations raises particular concerns about potential exacerbation of healthcare disparities.

Conclusion: Ambient AI scribes are already in use across UK primary care. Proactive regulation, consistent consent practices and independent evaluation, including patient perspectives, are urgently needed to ensure safe, equitable and sustainable implementation.

初级保健中的环境人工智能:一项对英国全科医生的探索性混合方法调查。
目的:研究英国全科医生(gp)对环境人工智能(AI)抄写员的采用情况,并评估初级保健中用户报告的错误率、工作流程影响和同意实践。方法:我们对通过Doctors.net.uk招募的全科医生进行了全国性的在线混合方法调查。详细分析使用,错误和工作流程的影响,集中在当前用户的环境人工智能抄写器。结果:2025年8月,1003名受访者中,14% (n=141)报告目前使用环境人工智能记录仪,39% (n=396)打算很快采用,46% (n=466)没有计划使用它们。在用户(n=141)中,Heidi Health占主导地位(86%)。大多数报告的效率提高:80% (n=112)报告减少了在文档上花费的时间,70% (n=99)报告减少了认知负荷。文献质量的评价是积极的,55% (n=78)的人认为输出比标准笔记更好。错误是常见的,但通常较小:32% (n=45)报告的错误经常/总是,包括14% (n=20)的重大到关键的影响。差错在多方会诊(38%)、复杂病史(35%)和非英语就诊(31%)中最为常见。同意做法各不相同:63% (n=89)例行寻求同意,≤10%的患者拒绝。自由文本回答(21%的用户)强调了工作流的好处,同时也关注准确性、道德规范和系统集成。讨论:研究结果表明,环境人工智能抄写员提供了有意义的效率提高和改进的感知文档质量,但引入了与准确性、公平性和医学法律责任相关的重大风险。复杂和多语言咨询的不平衡表现引起了人们对医疗保健差距可能加剧的特别关注。结论:环境人工智能记录仪已经在英国的初级保健中使用。迫切需要积极的监管、一致的同意做法和独立的评估,包括患者的观点,以确保安全、公平和可持续的实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.90%
发文量
40
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书