AI Scribes Deliver Modest Time Savings in Clinical Documentation, Large Study Finds

Key Takeaways:

• AI scribes were associated with small but measurable reductions in electronic health record use and documentation time
• Greater benefits were seen among clinicians who used the tools more frequently
• The reductions observed do not fully explain previously reported improvements in clinician burnout
  
  
  

The burden of clinical documentation

Documenting patient encounters within the electronic health record is a core component of modern healthcare delivery. However, it remains one of the most time-intensive aspects of clinical practice and is widely recognised as a contributor to clinician burnout.

In response, artificial intelligence-enabled ambient documentation tools, commonly referred to as AI scribes, have emerged. These systems automatically generate draft clinical notes based on conversations during patient appointments, allowing clinicians to review and edit them afterwards. While earlier research has suggested these tools may reduce burnout, there has been limited large-scale evidence examining how they affect day-to-day clinical workflows.

A large, real-world study across multiple hospitals

A new study co-led by researchers from Mass General Brigham and the University of California, San Francisco provides insight into this question. The study tracked the use of ambient documentation tools across five hospitals in the United States over a period exceeding two years.

More than 1,800 clinicians using AI scribes were compared with 6,770 clinicians who did not use the technology within the same institutions. This work forms part of the Ambient Clinical Documentation Collaborative, a multi-organisational research initiative.

Modest reductions in time spent on documentation

The findings, published in JAMA, indicate that AI scribes were associated with modest efficiency gains. On average, clinicians using these tools spent 13 fewer minutes per day on the electronic health record and 16 fewer minutes on documentation tasks.

These reductions correspond to relative decreases of 3% in overall EHR usage and 10% in documentation time.

The study also identified a small increase in productivity. Clinicians using AI scribes completed approximately 0.5 additional patient visits per week compared with those who did not use the technology.

Frequency of use influences impact

The benefits of AI scribes were not evenly distributed. The most notable improvements were observed among primary care physicians, advanced practice providers, female clinicians, and those who used the tools in at least half of their patient encounters.

Clinicians who used AI scribes for more than 50% of visits experienced roughly twice the reduction in total EHR time and three times the reduction in documentation time compared with less frequent users. Despite this, only 32% of clinicians adopted the technology at this level of regular use.

Financial impact remains limited

Although the increase in patient visits translated into higher revenue, the financial gains were modest. On average, clinicians using AI scribes generated an additional $167 per month.

This suggests that while the tools may offer efficiency benefits, their economic impact at an individual clinician level remains relatively small.

No change in after-hours workload

One notable finding was that time spent using the electronic health record outside of standard working hours did not differ significantly between clinicians using AI scribes and those who were not.

This raises important questions about how time savings during the working day are being redistributed and whether they meaningfully reduce workload burden or are absorbed by other clinical or administrative tasks.

Understanding the link to burnout

Despite prior evidence suggesting that ambient documentation tools may reduce clinician burnout, the mechanisms behind this effect remain unclear.

“Previous studies link ambient documentation to a significant decrease in burnout, but the underlying drivers of this reduction have been unclear,” said senior author Rebecca G. Mishuris, MD, MS, MPH, Chief Health Information Officer at Mass General Brigham.

“The modest reductions in documentation time we observed are unlikely to fully account for changes in burnout, underscoring the need to understand how these tools change how clinicians approach care delivery while using them.”

Adoption and real-world implementation

The study highlights both the promise and the limitations of AI scribes in real-world clinical settings. While measurable improvements were observed, their magnitude was relatively small and depended heavily on consistent use.

“Ambient documentation use is expanding rapidly across U.S. health care, making it essential to study how these technologies are impacting clinicians in real time,” said lead and corresponding study author Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, an associate professor of medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, and director of The Center for Physician Experience and Practice Excellence at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

“Our study demonstrates the impact of AI scribes in diverse real-world implementations at multiple sites. It also emphasizes the value of helping clinicians become comfortable with the technology so that they are reaping its full benefits via frequent use.”

The need for further research

The findings suggest that while AI scribes can improve efficiency, they are not a complete solution to the challenges associated with clinical documentation or clinician burnout.

Further research is needed to understand how these tools influence clinician behaviour, how saved time is reallocated, and whether broader system-level changes are required to fully realise their potential benefits.