USING AI

Ambient AI Tools

Scribes in day-to-day practice: how they work, where they fail, and how to use them effectively without compromising patient care.

~35 min read Practical guide
Core Question

How do you harness the efficiency of AI scribes while maintaining the accuracy and accountability that patient care demands?

Introduction: The Promise and the Responsibility

Walk into almost any primary care office in 2025, and you'll notice something different about the encounter: the physician's eyes are on you, not the screen. A small device—sometimes clipped to a lanyard, sometimes resting on the desk—captures the conversation. Within minutes of the visit's end, a draft clinical note appears in the EHR, ready for review.

This is ambient AI documentation in action. It represents one of the fastest-adopted technologies in the history of medical practice. The Permanente Medical Group deployed ambient AI scribes to 10,000 physicians in late 2023; within ten weeks, over 3,400 physicians had used the tool across 303,000 patient encounters. By late 2025, roughly 1 in 5 provider organizations have fully deployed ambient documentation, with another 2 in 5 in active pilots—adoption is accelerating faster than almost any previous clinical technology.

The Uncomfortable Truth

The same technology that restores eye contact and saves documentation hours can also fabricate diagnoses, insert medications never mentioned, and introduce errors that propagate through the medical record indefinitely—if you don't catch them. Understanding how these tools work, where they fail, and how to use them effectively is no longer optional for practicing clinicians.

This module builds on our earlier foundations: understanding large language models, recognizing their fundamental architecture (the same transformer-based systems that power chatbots also power scribes), and appreciating both their capabilities and their failure modes. Here, we'll translate that understanding into practical wisdom for one of the most consequential ambient tools you'll encounter in clinical practice.

Prioritize This!

If you're ready to try ambient AI, start with tools that combine documentation and clinical decision support—you get the scribe functionality plus real-time diagnostic assistance.

OpenEvidence Visits is free for NPI holders and now includes a HIPAA-secure Dialer for phone encounters. Glass Health offers ambient CDS that generates differential diagnoses in real-time during the encounter.

Both integrate documentation with evidence-based guidance—the scribe becomes a clinical partner, not just a secretary. See the Clinical Decision Support topic for detailed setup instructions.


A Brief History: From Dictaphones to AI Scribes

To understand where we are, it helps to trace how we got here.

The Pre-Digital Era (1900s–1950s)

Medical documentation as a formal practice began in the early 20th century. Physicians dictated notes to stenographers who transcribed them by hand. The process was labor-intensive, prone to error, and entirely dependent on the transcriptionist's ability to decode medical terminology and, often, illegible handwriting.

The Dictation Machine Era (1950s–1990s)

Tape recorders transformed medical transcription. Physicians could dictate notes onto audio tapes, which transcriptionists would later convert to written records. The American Association for Medical Transcription standardized practices in the 1970s, professionalizing the field.

The Speech Recognition Era (1998–2018)

Nuance's Dragon NaturallySpeaking launched in 1998, introducing real-time speech-to-text conversion to healthcare. Error rates remained significant—typically 7–11% for automated dictation—but the efficiency gains were undeniable. Many practicing physicians remember the distinctive frustration of correcting "hypertension" transcribed as "high attention."

The LLM Revolution (2020–Present)

The transformer architecture that powers ChatGPT also powers modern ambient scribes. But these systems do something fundamentally different: they don't just transcribe speech—they interpret it. They understand that when you say "let's continue the metformin" and "we'll check the A1c in three months," you're managing diabetes, even if you never speak the word.

This interpretive capability is both the breakthrough and the danger. The same flexibility that allows the model to understand context also allows it to generate plausible-sounding content that was never actually spoken—what we call hallucination.


What the Evidence Shows: Benefits and Limitations

Before exploring failure modes, let's acknowledge what the data demonstrate about real-world benefits.

Time Savings

The Permanente Medical Group's year-long evaluation found that ambient AI scribes:

A quality improvement study of 45 clinicians across 17 specialties found a median reduction of 2.6 minutes per appointment in documentation time, with a 29.3% reduction in after-hours EHR work.

Physician Satisfaction

Surveys consistently show high satisfaction:

The Important Caveats

The Productivity Paradox

As one NEJM AI editorial noted, "AI Scribes Are Not Productivity Tools (Yet)"—the promise of recovered time often gets absorbed into other tasks rather than fundamentally changing workload. Adoption patterns vary enormously—the top third of users account for a disproportionate share of total uses.


How Ambient AI Scribes Actually Work

Think of an ambient scribe as a pipeline with several stages:

1

Audio Capture

The system captures audio through a microphone—smartphone, dedicated device, or room-based pickup. Modern systems use multiple MEMS microphones with AI beamforming to capture clear audio from distances up to 16 feet.

2

Speech-to-Text

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) converts audio to text using specialized models trained on medical speech, terminology, and clinical conversation patterns.

3

Speaker Diarization

The system identifies who said what—distinguishing clinician from patient, family members, interpreters, or other staff. Errors here cascade downstream.

4

Note Generation

The LLM takes the attributed transcript and generates structured clinical documentation—extracting information, inferring diagnoses from context, and structuring the narrative into standard formats.

5

Human Review

The generated note appears as a draft for clinician review. This stage is non-negotiable—the note is a proposal that requires clinical judgment to approve, modify, or reject.


The Template Trap: A Critical Failure Mode

Here's an insight that separates sophisticated users from naive adopters: ambient scribes don't write notes from scratch. They fill templates. And templates create pressure to fill every field—even when the information doesn't exist.

How Templates Increase Hallucination Risk

Imagine a well-child visit template with 12 sections: Chief Complaint, HPI, Review of Systems (10 organ systems), Past Medical History, Family History, Social History, Developmental Assessment, Physical Exam, Immunizations, Anticipatory Guidance, Assessment, and Plan.

Now imagine a brief, efficient visit where the parent says the child is doing well, you confirm immunizations are up to date, and you provide anticipatory guidance about sleep and nutrition. The actual clinical content might fill three of those sections.

What happens? The AI, trained to generate complete notes, may:

The Danger

Each fabrication looks clinically appropriate. That's precisely the problem.

A Concrete Example

What the Physician Said

"Lily's doing great. She's walking well, says about 20 words. Sleep is still a battle—they're doing cry-it-out now. I'm recommending whole milk starting next week and showed mom how to cut grapes lengthwise."

What the Scribe Generated

Physical Exam:

General: Well-appearing, well-nourished toddler in no distress
HEENT: Normocephalic, atraumatic. Pupils equal and reactive. TMs clear bilaterally. Oropharynx without erythema or exudate.
Respiratory: Clear to auscultation bilaterally
Cardiovascular: Regular rate and rhythm, no murmurs
Abdomen: Soft, non-tender, non-distended
Extremities: Warm, well-perfused
Neurological: Appropriate for age

The reality: You observed the child walk across the room and chat with mom. You may have listened to the heart. You almost certainly didn't examine the ears, throat, or abdomen during a routine well visit where the child was "doing great."

This note is medicolegally problematic. It's clinically misleading for future providers. And it happened because the template expected a complete physical exam, and the model obliged.


The Taxonomy of AI Scribe Errors

Research has identified several distinct failure modes. Understanding them helps you know what to look for during review.

What the Research Shows: Quantified Error Rates

A 2025 study in npj Digital Medicine analyzed 12,999 clinician-annotated sentences from LLM-generated clinical notes and found:

  • Hallucination rate: 1.47% (fabricated content not in source material)
  • Omission rate: 3.45% (critical information missing from notes)

These rates are lower than traditional speech recognition (7–11% error rate) but still clinically significant. Even 1–2% hallucination rates mean errors in thousands of notes across a health system. Other studies report hallucination rates as high as 7% depending on the system and clinical context.

1 Fabrications (Hallucinations)

The system generates content that was never spoken or observed. Examples include:

  • Documenting examinations never performed
  • Creating diagnoses never discussed
  • Inserting medications never mentioned
  • Adding "patient denies" statements for review of systems not conducted
The "Thank You for Watching" Problem: Research on OpenAI's Whisper found that during silences—particularly common in patients with aphasia—the model sometimes inserted phrases like "Thank you for watching!" or fabricated website links. Why? The model was trained partly on YouTube videos, where such phrases are common.

2 Omissions

Critical information discussed during the encounter is absent from the generated note:

  • Symptoms the patient emphasized
  • Concerns about side effects
  • Social context affecting treatment
  • Red flag symptoms that should have triggered documentation
Omissions are particularly insidious because you're reviewing what's present, not what's missing. A note can look complete and well-organized while leaving out the detail that matters most.

3 Misinterpretations

Context-dependent statements get misconstrued:

  • "I stopped taking it" (meaning temporarily) → documented as medication discontinuation
  • "The pain is like what my father had before his heart attack" → documented as cardiac history
  • Hypothetical discussions → documented as decisions made
The Hypothetical Made Real: You discuss adding amlodipine as a possibility but decide to continue current therapy. The scribe, capturing the detailed discussion, generates: "Plan: Add amlodipine 5mg daily." A medication you were considering hypothetically is now documented as a decision made.

4 Speaker Attribution Errors

The system incorrectly assigns statements:

  • Patient concerns attributed to the clinician
  • Clinician recommendations attributed to the patient
  • Third-party comments (family, interpreter) misattributed
Research shows these errors disproportionately affect patients with certain speech patterns, non-native English speakers, and African American patients—raising significant equity concerns.

5 Template-Induced Errors

As described above, the pressure to complete structured templates leads to generated content filling gaps that should remain empty.

Historical Echoes: We've Been Here Before

Earlier speech recognition systems caused documented patient harm:

The difference with LLM-based scribes is the nature of the error. Traditional speech-to-text made nonsense errors—obviously wrong transcriptions that looked like errors. LLM-based systems make plausible errors—fabrications that look like reasonable clinical documentation. The second type is far harder to catch.


The Verification Imperative

Core Principle

Not reviewing an AI scribe output is equivalent to signing a note you didn't read. The technology changed. The responsibility didn't.

Why Verification Gets Skipped

Understanding the pressures that lead to inadequate review helps you resist them:

  1. Time pressure: The whole point was to save time. Detailed review feels like it defeats the purpose.
  2. Apparent completeness: AI-generated notes look polished and professional. They don't have obvious gaps that catch the eye.
  3. Confirmation bias: The note says what you expect to see, so your brain pattern-matches and approves.
  4. Automation complacency: After 50 notes that were fine, the 51st gets cursory attention.
  5. Audio deletion: Many systems delete audio after processing, making true verification against source impossible.

Verification Best Practices

Accept the Limitation

You cannot fully verify a note against audio you no longer have. If your system deletes audio immediately, you're working with the transcript and your memory—both imperfect.

Develop a Systematic Scan

  • Read the Assessment and Plan first—does it match your clinical reasoning?
  • Check medication lists against what was actually discussed
  • Verify documented exams match exams performed
  • Look for "denies" statements in the ROS and confirm you actually asked

Review Immediately

Use the note immediately after the encounter. Your memory is freshest right after the visit. Batching review to the end of the day invites errors.

Know Your Template

If you know which fields your system tries to complete, you can pay special attention to those sections.


The Legal Landscape: Recording Consent

Before an AI scribe can capture your patient conversation, someone has to consent to being recorded. The legal requirements vary dramatically by state.

One-Party vs. Two-Party Consent

Interstate Telehealth Complication

If you're in a one-party state and your telehealth patient is in a two-party state, which law applies? Courts have generally held that the stricter law governs. The safest practice: always obtain explicit consent, regardless of state.

Best Practice: Universal Consent Protocol

Regardless of legal requirements, ethical practice and patient trust favor transparency:


HIPAA Compliance: Hardware and Software

Using an AI scribe means patient health information is being captured, processed, and potentially stored by third-party systems. HIPAA compliance is non-negotiable.

What HIPAA Requires

Evaluating Vendors

Key compliance certifications to look for:

The Market Landscape in 2025

Enterprise-Grade Solutions

Microsoft Dragon Copilot (formerly Nuance DAX)

Deep Epic integration, enterprise focus. ~$600/month + $650 setup fee. Now integrating OpenEvidence for real-time literature access.

Abridge

2025 Best in KLAS winner. 150+ health systems including Mayo Clinic, Emory, UNC Health. $300M Series E (June 2025). Reports 73% less after-hours documentation, 61% reduced cognitive burden.

DeepScribe

Specialty focus (oncology, cardiology). Embedded billing codes.

Practice-Level Solutions

Freed

20,000+ clinician users. $99/month, HIPAA-compliant. Best for primary care, psychiatry, internal medicine. Free tier available (3 notes/week).

Heidi Health

2M+ consultations/week globally. $99/month. HIPAA, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 certified. Strong EHR integrations including Epic. Free tier available.

Suki

Voice commands for EHR navigation, not just documentation.

Hybrid CDS + Documentation

OpenEvidence Visits

Free for NPI holders. Documentation + evidence-based CDS + new HIPAA-secure Dialer for phone encounters.

Glass Health Ambient CDS

Real-time differential diagnosis during encounters. EHR integration for patient context.


Beyond Clinical Encounters: Tools for Meetings and Virtual Visits

While the previous sections focused on in-person clinical encounters, physicians spend significant time in meetings, administrative calls, and virtual visits—contexts where traditional clinical AI scribes may not be the best fit. Two tools deserve specific attention for these use cases.

Granola.ai: The Meeting Intelligence Layer

Granola is an AI notepad designed specifically for meetings—not clinical encounters, but the administrative reality of modern medicine: committee meetings, project calls, team huddles, vendor discussions, and the endless coordination that consumes physician time.

How Granola Works
  • Ambient capture: Runs quietly in the background during any meeting (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, or in-person with laptop audio)
  • Intelligent notes: Creates structured meeting summaries, action items, and key decisions
  • Customizable templates: Different formats for different meeting types
  • Search and recall: Find what was discussed across all your meetings

Why Physicians Should Consider It

Medical practice involves far more than patient care. Department meetings, quality improvement sessions, research team calls, administrative discussions—these generate action items, commitments, and decisions that too often live only in fallible memory.

Important Boundaries

Granola is not designed for clinical encounters. Their standard tiers are not HIPAA-compliant—though their Enterprise tier now offers HIPAA compliance, SSO, and private storage for healthcare organizations willing to pay for custom pricing.

For most individual clinicians: use Granola for administrative meetings only, never for patient care documentation. For patient encounters, use purpose-built clinical AI scribes with BAAs and HIPAA compliance.

Plaud.ai: HIPAA-Compliant Recording for Virtual Visits

Plaud offers a hardware-software combination that addresses a specific gap: HIPAA-compliant recording and transcription for telehealth and virtual visits, particularly when your institution's standard tools don't include ambient AI capabilities.

How Plaud Works
  • Physical device: A credit-card-sized recorder that attaches magnetically to your phone or sits on your desk
  • Desktop mode: Can record virtual visits on your laptop/desktop via audio capture
  • Full compliance stack: HIPAA, SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, ISO 27001, ISO 27701 certified—one of the most thoroughly certified options available
  • Healthcare-specific features: Medical terminology recognition, SOAP note generation, speaker diarization across 112+ languages
  • Local-first option: Choose between local device storage and cloud processing; customize data retention periods

The Virtual Visit Use Case

Telehealth created a documentation challenge: you're conducting a visit via video, but your hands are on keyboard and mouse for the EHR, not available for typing notes. Many telehealth platforms don't include AI scribing, leaving clinicians to document from memory after the call—or to toggle awkwardly between video and EHR.

Plaud addresses this by:

Practical Implementation

Setup

  • Ensure your institution's BAA covers Plaud or obtain individual coverage
  • Configure the device for desktop audio capture
  • Set up your preferred note template in the Plaud app

During Visit

  • Obtain verbal consent for recording (same script as in-person visits)
  • Start recording before launching your video call
  • Conduct your visit normally—the device captures both sides of the conversation

After Visit

  • Stop recording and allow AI processing
  • Review and edit the generated summary
  • Copy relevant content to your EHR note
  • Delete the recording per your retention policy

Choosing the Right Tool for the Context

Context Recommended Tool Key Consideration
In-person clinical encounters Clinical AI scribes (Abridge, Nuance, etc.) EHR integration, clinical templates
Virtual patient visits Plaud or platform-integrated scribe HIPAA compliance, BAA coverage
Administrative meetings Granola Not for PHI; meeting-optimized
Case conferences (de-identified) Granola with caution Ensure no PHI in discussion
Research team calls Granola Track action items and decisions
The Broader Point

Different contexts require different tools. The clinical AI scribe that works perfectly for a primary care visit may be overkill for a department meeting or unavailable for your telehealth platform. Building a personal toolkit of ambient AI tools—each matched to its appropriate context—maximizes efficiency while maintaining appropriate compliance and privacy boundaries.


Beyond Documentation: Scribes with Clinical Decision Support

A significant development in 2024–2025: ambient scribes that don't just transcribe but think along with you.

OpenEvidence Visits

OpenEvidence began as a clinical decision support tool—essentially a physician-facing search engine trained on medical literature. Their "Visits" feature integrates ambient documentation with real-time evidence:

New: HIPAA-Secure Dialer for Phone Encounters

In late 2025, OpenEvidence launched a free HIPAA-secure Dialer that extends ambient documentation to phone calls:

  • Privacy-first calling: Your personal number stays hidden—caller ID displays your practice number
  • Automatic note generation: Phone encounters automatically generate clinical notes through Visits integration
  • Unlimited minutes: No per-call charges for verified NPI holders

This is particularly valuable for follow-up calls, test result discussions, and care coordination—encounters that previously generated no documentation or required manual notes.

Microsoft Integration (October 2025): OpenEvidence announced collaboration with Microsoft to integrate its evidence service into the Dragon Copilot ambient platform, bringing real-time literature access directly into enterprise clinical workflows.

Glass Health Ambient CDS

Glass Health approaches clinical AI differently: ambient clinical decision support that generates diagnostic reasoning in real time during the encounter.

The Paradigm Shift

These tools suggest that the future of ambient AI isn't just reducing documentation burden—it's augmenting clinical reasoning itself. The scribe becomes a clinical partner, not just a secretary. But any tool that suggests diagnoses during an encounter carries risk of anchoring bias and over-reliance.


Practical Implementation: Making Scribes Work for You

Workflow Integration

Before the Visit

  • Review patient context (some advanced scribes can summarize prior visits)
  • Prepare your device and confirm functionality
  • Know what consent language you'll use

During the Visit

  • Announce recording and obtain consent
  • Speak naturally, but recognize that clarity helps
  • Verbalize physical exam findings as you perform them
  • Summarize your assessment and plan aloud

After the Visit

  • Review the generated note promptly
  • Compare against your clinical reasoning
  • Edit for accuracy, not just grammar
  • Sign only when confident in the content

Speaking for the Scribe

Some habits improve documentation quality:

When NOT to Use the Scribe

Some clinical situations warrant pausing or disabling ambient recording:


Case-Based Learning: Putting It Together

Case 1: The Fabricated Allergy

Dr. Martinez reviews an AI-generated note from a follow-up visit. The Assessment reads: "Type 2 diabetes, well-controlled. Patient reports compliance with metformin. Documented sulfa allergy noted."

The problem: The patient has no sulfa allergy. During the visit, Dr. Martinez asked about medication tolerability, and the patient mentioned she "used to take sulfonylureas but switched to metformin." The AI, processing "sulfa" in a medication context, generated an allergy documentation.

Lesson: Similar-sounding terms (sulfonylurea/sulfa) in different clinical contexts can trigger incorrect associations. Verify allergy documentation especially carefully—errors propagate indefinitely and affect prescribing decisions for years.

Case 2: The Dangerous Omission

A patient presents with chest pain. The cardiologist conducts a thorough evaluation, ultimately reassuring the patient that the symptoms are musculoskeletal. During the visit, the patient mentioned, "I've also been getting short of breath going up stairs, but I figured that's just because I'm out of shape."

The AI-generated note comprehensively documents the chest pain evaluation but omits the exertional dyspnea entirely—it was mentioned briefly, not explored, and the AI prioritized the chief complaint. Three months later, the patient returns with decompensated heart failure.

Lesson: Omissions are invisible errors. Develop habits of checking for what should be documented based on what you recall discussing, not just verifying what's present.

Case 3: The Successful Integration

Dr. Chen, an internist, has used an AI scribe effectively for 18 months. Her approach:

  • Before every visit: Quick verbal self-note: "Patient here for diabetes follow-up and blood pressure check"
  • During the visit: She narrates her physical exam aloud: "Blood pressure 142/88, repeat 138/84. Heart regular, no murmurs."
  • During counseling: She explicitly states plans: "Our plan is to continue the lisinopril but I'm adding amlodipine 5mg daily."
  • After the visit: She reviews Assessment and Plan first, then scans the physical exam for documented findings she didn't actually elicit
  • Weekly: She audits 2-3 notes randomly, looking for patterns of error

Her editing rate averages 15% of generated content. She catches approximately one significant error per week. Her documentation time has decreased by 40%.

Lesson: Effective use requires systematic habits adapted to your workflow, not just adoption of the technology.

The Equity Dimension

It would be negligent to discuss ambient AI without addressing disparities.

Research shows speech recognition systems exhibit systematic performance disparities:

These aren't just technical limitations—they're equity issues. If your AI scribe transcribes some patients less accurately than others, documentation quality varies by patient demographics.

What You Can Do
  • Pay extra attention when reviewing notes from encounters where transcription may have struggled
  • Advocate for vendors to report accuracy metrics across demographic groups
  • Report disparities you observe to your vendor and organization
  • Consider human review support for complex cases

Resources for Further Learning

Essential Research (2025)

NEJM AI, November 2025 · First randomized controlled trial comparing DAX Copilot vs Nabla vs control. Found modest time savings (41 sec/note) and burnout reduction. Key finding: "Occasional inaccuracies observed in either scribe require ongoing physician vigilance."
NEJM Catalyst, 2025 · Permanente Medical Group's comprehensive follow-up. 84% reported improved patient communication, 82% improved work satisfaction.
npj Digital Medicine, 2025 · Comprehensive taxonomy of AI scribe errors including hallucinations, omissions, and misattributions.
npj Digital Medicine, 2025 · Quantified error rates: 1.47% hallucination rate, 3.45% omission rate across 12,999 clinician-annotated sentences.

Podcasts & Videos

STAT News First Opinion Podcast, May 2025 (34 min) · Two physicians debate AI scribes—one enthusiast, one skeptic. Covers privacy, patient rapport, burnout, and consent. Deeply thoughtful rather than adversarial.
AMA Update Video, 2025 · Dr. Brian Hoberman (CIO, Kaiser Permanente) discusses their system-wide Abridge deployment across 40 hospitals and 600+ medical offices. "It feels like magic."
The Cribsiders #135, March 2025 · Dr. Tristan Nichols covers AI scribes, LLMs in clinical practice, and ethical considerations. Good overview for trainees.
Ongoing series · Informal conversations with experts at the intersection of AI and medicine. Check for ambient scribe episodes.

Additional Resources

Tierney et al. · NEJM Catalyst, 2024 · The landmark TPMG implementation study
"AI Scribes: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions"
Canadian Medical Protective Association · Practical Q&A on liability and best practices
"Careless Whisper: Speech-to-Text Hallucination Harms"
Koenecke et al. · ACM FAccT, 2024 · Critical research on transcription hallucinations
TechySurgeon Substack · Practical physician perspective on optimizing ambient scribe workflows
Aliaa Barakat · STAT First Opinion, April 2025 · The patient perspective on AI documentation—important counterpoint to physician enthusiasm.

Summary: Key Takeaways

How They Work

Ambient AI scribes use LLMs to interpret and document clinical conversations, not just transcribe them. This interpretive capability creates both value and risk.

The Template Trap

Templates create pressure to fill fields, increasing hallucination risk. The more structured your template, the more likely the AI will fabricate content for empty sections.

Verification Is Mandatory

Not reviewing an AI scribe output is equivalent to signing a note you didn't read. The technology changed; your responsibility didn't.

Consent Varies by State

Eleven states require all-party consent. Best practice is universal consent regardless of legal requirements.

Beyond Documentation

Next-generation scribes integrate clinical decision support. Tools like OpenEvidence and Glass Health offer real-time diagnostic suggestions.

The Human Remains Essential

AI scribes are drafting tools, not documentation systems. Clinical judgment—including judgment about the AI's output—cannot be delegated.


Reflection Questions

  1. What's your current documentation workflow, and where would an ambient scribe integrate? What would you need to change?
  2. Recall a recent encounter where you documented a physical exam. How much of what you wrote did you actually perform versus document by template default?
  3. If your AI scribe hallucinated a medication allergy into a patient's record, what downstream consequences might occur?
  4. How would you explain AI scribe consent to a patient who is anxious about technology and privacy?

Learning Objectives

  • Explain how ambient AI scribes capture, process, and generate clinical documentation
  • Identify the five major categories of AI scribe errors and their clinical implications
  • Apply systematic verification strategies to AI-generated notes
  • Navigate recording consent requirements across different jurisdictions
  • Evaluate ambient scribe vendors for HIPAA compliance and clinical fit
  • Adapt clinical communication habits to optimize scribe performance