Is a patient backlash brewing against GPs who use AI scribes?
The patient consent process for AI scribes is patchy and frequently inadequate, with some GP practices relying solely on waiting-room signs, a patient group says.
The speed and scale of GPs picking up AI scribes have been remarkable, with one survey suggesting 40% of GPs already use them — a testament to how they have changed the working lives of doctors.
However, patients are increasingly worried about informed consent, privacy and accuracy, says Consumer Health Forum of Australia CEO Dr Elizabeth Deveny (PhD).
“Some GPs do a great job of making sure a patient knows about the AI scribe before they come in,” Ms Deveny tells AusDoc.
“Maybe they will send a text message. It will be on the website. The reception staff will mention it. Information might be in the waiting room.
“Then, they will also obtain consent from the patient at the start of the consultation.
“Whereas other people say they were already in the consultation when they realised a scribe was being used. It had never been discussed.
“Or there is this offhand, ‘You don’t mind if I record this?’ as the consult starts.”
She said she wanted minimum standards rolled out for how GPs obtain and record patient consent, based on a public consultation.
She said a quick verbal consent when a consultation started would not be enough, given patients may have questions but not want to waste consultation time asking them.
Some patients consented because they felt awkward about derailing the consultation, she added.
Doctors could relay information about their practice’s use of scribes ahead of a consultation, in a text, on the practice website, on social media or through reception staff.
She said that when she first asked if her GP practice used scribes, she was told no.
“But the next time I went, I noticed, in the corner of the waiting room, a small poster saying they were using one.
“No-one had spoken to me about it.
“When I went into the consultation, the GP was clearly using the scribe but there was no discussion with me.”
She said patients had complained of inaccuracies in referral letters — for example, where a scribe had clearly misheard something.
“There is also early research showing that, over time, GPs and other clinicians are checking data less, so the quality assurance on their notes diminishes over time.
“Of course, if it is in the record, it matters, both legally and clinically.”
Patients had also complained that GPs who used scribes had worse memories of previous consultations, with evidence suggesting that physical note-taking helped recollection, she said.
“We are hearing people say, ‘I went to my GP, and it felt a bit like they had been distracted at my last consultation because they did not seem to remember what had happened or understand the emotional impact of what we discussed.’”
She acknowledged that AI scribes saved on admin, creating space for more face-to-face time for GPs and patients.
“If scribes reduce admin and allow GPs to focus on the person in front of them, that is a clear win,” she said.
“But the record must be right. If errors creep in, that creates risks for both patients and clinicians.”
Read more: Indemnity provider wants ‘minimum standards’ set for AI scribes used in consults
