Patients could be at risk if their GP uses AI to listen to appointments and write medical notes, study suggests
A study by University of Edinburgh researchers warns that AI "scribe" tools, now used by roughly four in ten GPs to transcribe and summarise appointments, may miss crucial non-verbal cues such as gestures, facial expressions and tone, potentially putting patients at risk. The technology, designed to reduce paperwork and let doctors focus more on patients, could also cause patients to withhold sensitive information and lead to "deskilling" among clinicians who have fewer opportunities to practise their own note-taking and reasoning skills.
The review, published in BMJ Digital Health and AI, examined 27 existing studies and found AI summaries tend to prioritise clinical detail over patients' personal accounts of their illness, particularly disadvantaging marginalised groups. Researchers cautioned that patients may alter their behaviour when aware AI is listening, reducing disclosure of issues like substance abuse, domestic violence or mental health struggles, while some doctors reported not recognising AI-generated notes or struggling to recall patients later. NHS England has urged rapid rollout of the technology but requires clinicians to review notes and obtain patient consent; Medical Protection welcomed the tools' potential to ease administrative burdens while acknowledging the risks the review raises.
- Study warns AI medical scribes may miss vital non-verbal patient cues.
- Around 40% of GPs already use AI to write consultation notes.
- Researchers fear patient distrust, reduced disclosure and doctor "deskilling".
New here? Start with this
GP appointments are conversations between patients and general practitioners, who assess health concerns and record information in medical notes. AI scribe tools listen to appointments and produce written summaries, with the aim of reducing paperwork so doctors can focus more on patients.
The University of Edinburgh researchers reviewed 27 studies of these tools. Their review found that summaries can favour clinical details over patients’ own accounts, and may miss meaning conveyed through tone, facial expressions or gestures.
The concerns include whether patients feel able to discuss sensitive matters when AI is listening, and whether doctors can rely on the notes without losing their own note-taking and reasoning skills. NHS England supports wider use, with clinicians required to check the notes and get patients’ consent; Medical Protection has also recognised both the tools’ potential and the risks.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
AI scribes could reduce the administrative burden on GPs, giving them more time and attention for patients while helping manage workloads. With patient consent and clinicians checking the notes, the tools may be useful support, provided their limits are monitored and addressed.
The case against
The tools may miss gestures, tone and other context that can matter clinically, while their summaries may privilege clinical details over patients’ own accounts. Patients could disclose less when an AI is listening, and reliance on automated notes may weaken clinicians’ skills or familiarity with patients, creating risks that consent and review may not fully prevent.