![\"AI](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/shutterstock_1993144466-1-1024x683.jpg\")
Clinicians and consumers report mixed experiences with AI scribes (Monkey Business Images \/ Shutterstock).<\/p>\nAI scribes promise multiple benefits for general practitioners and their patients, but we may risk losing valuable human connection in the process, writes Dr Elizabeth Deveny.<\/p>\n
AI scribes are entering general practice settings across Australia. These tools transcribe conversations and draft notes. The promise: less admin, better records and more patient focus.<\/p>\n
In a system under pressure, these benefits are not trivial. None of this is about blame: GPs are under immense pressure already.<\/p>\n
But what do we all lose when the machine starts to write the notes?<\/p>\n
Health care is deeply human. The consultation is more than a transaction or information exchange. It\u2019s relational, contextual and shaped by silence as much as by speech. The introduction of AI into that space is not neutral. It changes not only what gets recorded, but what gets said.<\/p>\n
We don\u2019t yet have population-level data on the use of AI scribes in general practice in Australia. Formal research will follow, but early signals like these deserve attention now. Clinicians and consumers report mixed experiences.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve heard many people say that something shifts in the room when their doctor starts using an AI scribe. They can\u2019t always name what\u2019s changed. Some feel less seen. Others miss the way their GP paused to jot things down. That pause helped the doctor think, and gave patients a moment to reflect, breathe and decide what to say.<\/p>\n
That small moment of slowness mattered.<\/p>\n
And then it\u2019s gone.<\/p>\n
The doctor\u2019s still facing you, but something in the room has changed.<\/p>\n
Clinicians and consumers report mixed experiences with AI scribes (Monkey Business Images \/ Shutterstock).<\/p>\n
Speeding up consultations isn\u2019t always helpful, especially, for example, for people with auditory processing issues or who come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. A faster clinical conversation may make it harder to participate. One woman told me she left a consultation in tears. She couldn\u2019t keep up and didn\u2019t want to interrupt the GP or the machine. Technology might help one person and accidentally shut someone else out.<\/p>\n
A friend recently said this: \u201cMy GP seems to forget more of what we talked about than I do, since he started using that bot to write his notes.\u201d She felt less remembered, less heard \u2014 enough to consider changing doctors.<\/p>\n
This isn\u2019t science, but the patterns are there, echoed in many conversations. Maybe I\u2019m wrong. Maybe these are just teething issues, and we\u2019ll all adapt. But something\u2019s shifting, and I don\u2019t think we can afford to ignore it. The presence of an AI scribe changes the feel of the room. It changes who clinicians speak to, what they notice, and what people are willing to say. If you\u2019re early in your career, these shifts may not be obvious yet, but they shape trust over time.<\/p>\n
Some clinicians have told me that reviewing the notes they personally wrote after a consultation often brings a fresh insight. A moment of clarity that helps them piece something together. The act of re-reading their own words, shaped by their memory and attention at the time, can bring nuance to clinical reasoning. I wonder whether AI-generated notes will offer the same depth. When the words aren\u2019t your own and the emotional context is stripped away, does something vital get lost?<\/p>\n
All of us in leadership roles \u2014 whether consumers, clinicians, system builders or policy makers \u2014 need to ask what the AI is learning. What counts as success? Who defines it? This is also a governance question. If we\u2019re training machines on imperfect data, we may be encoding blind spots.<\/p>\n
There are also concerns around training and consent. Where power imbalances exist, the rushed \u201cThis okay with you?\u201d at the start of a consultation may not constitute meaningful consent. Consumers often say they didn\u2019t have a real choice.<\/p>\n
And what if a consumer does mind? What happens then? Consumers don\u2019t want to be punished if they object to an AI scribe being used during their consultation. Some object because no one explains how the technology works or where the data goes. Others simply don\u2019t want their conversations recorded. This is all reasonable. Health professionals need to remember that while they may believe AI scribes are the future, not all consumers are convinced.<\/p>\n
We need to shape the use of AI scribes with care. That means co-designing standards with everyone affected, especially consumers. It means making space to pause, reflect and catch what might be missed.<\/p>\n
And real consent, not just a rushed line at the start. Without this, we risk undermining trust \u2014 the very foundation of good care.<\/p>\n
The potential benefits aren\u2019t only for clinicians. We need to ask: what might a consumer experience as a gain? Are their needs being captured and acted on more clearly?<\/p>\n
Peer-reviewed studies could help us understand how AI scribes affect not just clinician burnout and system efficiency, but also consumer safety and continuity of care. I\u2019m not anti-technology. If this is progress, I\u2019d say it\u2019s time to get a second opinion \u2014 and ask what might quietly go missing.<\/p>\n
Silence isn\u2019t empty. It can hold hesitation, even courage. A human can be trained to notice this. A machine can only transcribe.<\/p>\n
Even the best transcription is still a translation. And what gets lost in translation, especially in care, can be everything that matters.<\/p>\n
Dr Elizabeth Deveny is currently the CEO of Consumers Health Forum of Australia, the national independent peak body for health consumers. Her recent roles include CEO of South Eastern Melbourne PHN, CEO of Bayside Medical Local and Chair of Southern Metropolitan Partnership.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The statements or opinions expressed in this article reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy of the AMA, the\u00a0MJA\u00a0or\u00a0InSight+\u00a0unless so stated.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Subscribe to the free\u00a0InSight+\u00a0weekly newsletter\u00a0here<\/a>. It is available to all readers, not just registered medical practitioners.\u00a0<\/p>\n