Cited by 43Electronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Evaluating ambient artificial intelligence documentation: effects on work efficiency, documentation burden, and patient-centered care

Open access
Guo, Yawen, Wang, Jiayuan, Hu, Di, Tam, Steven, Gilman, Charles, Chow, Emilie, Perret, Danielle, Pandita, Deepti +1 more·2026·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Background and Significance: Ambient listening tools powered by generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) offer real-time, scribe-like support that reduce documentation burden and may help alleviate burnout. This study assesses physician-perceived benefits and challenges of ambient AI implementation through surveys and evaluates its effectiveness in clinical workflows using automatically recorded electronic health record (EHR) time-efficiency metrics. Method and Materials: A quality improvement pilot has been underway at UCI Health since December 2023. Epic EHR Signal metrics were analyzed to assess changes in note length, documentation time, and same-day encounter closure rates. Matched pre- and post-implementation surveys evaluated physician-perceived changes in documentation burden, clinical efficiency, and care quality. We also examined open-ended survey responses using thematic analysis to supplement quantitative findings. Results: Analysis on EHR usage data from 167 physicians showed significant reductions in note-writing time, despite an increase in note length. Survey responses (n = 65) also indicated statistically significant improvements across multiple domains. Physicians reported reduced cognitive demand (P = .031) and documentation effort (P = .014), alongside perceptions of enhanced clinical efficiency, patient-centered care, and EHR system usability. Thematic analysis confirmed these quantitative findings and identified opportunities for improvement, including specialty-specific customization and expanded AI functionality. Discussion: Ambient AI tools demonstrated improved documentation efficiency, perceived care quality, and reduced cognitive workload. These benefits suggest potential to alleviate key burdens in clinical documentation. Conclusion: Future development should prioritize customization for specialty-specific and individual physician needs, ensure the reliability and accuracy of AI-generated content, and integrate ethical and legal considerations to facilitate safe and scalable implementation in patient-centered care contexts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocaf180

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI is rapidly reshaping healthcare and the competencies expected of graduating medical students.

    “Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping healthcare and the competencies expected of graduating medical students”

    From What the AI era doctor should know: a scoping review of proposed artificial intelligence competencies for medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Background and significance section (page unavailable) describes recent advances in ambient AI documentation, and the Conclusion (page unavailable) reports effects on clinical workflow and patient care. These passages support AI changing an aspect of healthcare, but the paper does not address the competencies expected of graduating medical students; a search for medical-student competencies and curriculum found no relevant passage. Its evidence concerns ambient AI in one health system, not a healthcare-wide transformation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI has enabled novel digital solutions in diagnostics, imaging, and clinical decision support and patient management.

    “AI has enabled novel digital solutions in diagnostics1–4, imaging5,6, and clinical decision support and patient management7–9.”

    From What the AI era doctor should know: a scoping review of proposed artificial intelligence competencies for medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    For this source, the relevant part of the citing sentence is clinical decision support and patient management, not diagnostics or imaging. The Results (Patient safety and care experience; page unavailable) report improved physician perceptions of patient-centered care after ambient AI documentation was introduced. But the Discussion describes clinical decision-making as a desired future expansion, not an existing capability demonstrated by the study; it does not establish AI-enabled clinical decision support or patient management. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, Y., Wang, J., Hu, D., Tam, S., Gilman, C., Chow, E., Perret, D., Pandita, D., & Zheng, K.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2025-10-16
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
273-282
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W4415260223
Cited by
43
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 1
FWCI
33.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (UM1TR004927)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
generative AI, clinical documentation burden, electronic health records, physician burnout, EHR usability, patient-centered care, clinical workflow efficiency, physician perceptions
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Burnout, Professional, Documentation, Humans, Physicians, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Efficiency, Organizational, Patient-Centered Care, Workflow, Electronic Health Records, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review