Ambient AI in primary care: an exploratory mixed methods survey of UK general practitioners, 2026, Blease et al.

[Chandelier]

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

Spoiler: Authors

Blease, Charlotte; Kharko, Anna; Sanchez, Carolina Garcia; Navarro, David; McMillan, Brian; Gaab, Jens; Locher, Cosima; Coiera, Enrico

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.

What is already known on this topic​

• Ambient artificial intelligence scribes are marketed as tools to ease documentation and reduce burnout, but evidence on real-world uptake and general practitioner (GP) perspectives in the UK is sparse.

What this study adds​

• This survey shows early but growing adoption, with GPs reporting clear efficiency gains but also accuracy concerns, especially in complex and multilingual consultations.

How this study might affect research, practice or policy​

• Findings highlight the need for regulation, consistent consent practices and prospective studies, including patient perspectives, to guide safe and equitable implementation.

Web | DOI | PMC | PDF | BMJ Health & Care Informatics | Open Access

 

[Chandelier]

Doctors’ AI scribes get names of drugs and diagnoses wrong, NHS watchdog warns

Exclusive: Patients identify errors in consultation transcripts that are missed by GPs, Healthwatch England finds

www.theguardian.com

Doctors’ AI scribes get names of drugs and diagnoses wrong, NHS watchdog warns​

Exclusive: Patients identify errors in consultation transcripts that are missed by GPs, Healthwatch England finds

In one case a woman was left badly shaken when the AI scribe’s summary of her conversation wrongly said she had demyelination – serious nerve damage that can lead to multiple sclerosis.



It was only when the patient, an NHS health professional, queried the AI tool’s record of the result of her MRI scan that the hospital corrected it to what it should have been – “null demyelination”.

“This was eventually corrected but was a very traumatising experience to be given an incorrect diagnosis because of AI and then be told it’s a typo,” said the woman, who asked not to be named.

Healthwatch England has highlighted the case and other mistakes by AI scribes to show that the technology, which the NHS is rolling out rapidly, is a potential threat to patient safety. Unless detected, errors could end up in patients’ medical records and affect their care, it said.

Dr Charlotte Blease, an expert in AI use in healthcare at Uppsala university in Sweden, said: “AI can and does make mistakes.”

Her research found that GPs who use ambient voice technology believe that errors are more likely to creep in when the consultation is with more than one person, with patients with a complex medical history, and with those whose first language is not English.

But, she added: “The fact is, doctors can and do make mistakes without AI. And it is certainly possible the error rate is worse.”

More than half the 1,003 UK GPs in her survey last year believed that their ambient AI records were more accurate than those produced themselves, Blease said.

 

[InitialConditions]

The transcript from my most recent GP appointment, which is viewable on the NHS app, was a complete mess. About half the words were wrong. Not sure if AI or not. The next time I checked the transcript had been corrected.

 

[rvallee]

But, she added: “The fact is, doctors can and do make mistakes without AI. And it is certainly possible the error rate is worse.”

More importantly, the error rate of AI will keep getting lower and eventually drop to zero. Many common errors physicians make in records cannot be fixed, as they are usually about interpretation or opinion rather than accurate transcription of what was said. Also errors in things said definitely happen with humans, and they are even less fixable. Some of those errors are intentional, which might make its way into an AI system, but if done correctly it should be auditable, unlike someone's opinion about, say, "fashionable diagnoses".