Ambient AI Scribes May Ease Clinic Visits, But Patient Comfort Depends on Trust and Familiarity

Far less is known about how patients experience them. A new qualitative study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine set out to answer that question, interviewing patients treated in ambulatory clinics at an academic medical center where an ambient AI scribe was being tested in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial. The researchers found that patients reported tangible improvements in their visits, but their comfort with the technology hinged on a handful of identifiable factors rather than on the tool alone.

The study team, led by Oliver T. Nguyen and colleagues, used a semi-structured interview guide built around key patient experience domains identified through a literature review. They recruited patients from multiple ambulatory specialties, including dermatology and primary care, whose clinicians were participating in the scribe implementation trial. Interviews were analyzed both deductively, against pre-defined experience domains, and inductively, allowing new patterns to emerge from patients' own words.

Twenty patients were interviewed before the team reached thematic saturation, the point at which additional interviews stopped yielding new themes. Patients described several ways the scribes appeared to improve their visits. Some reported feeling greater respect for their preferences, noting fewer distractions for the clinician during the conversation.

Others said the visit notes seemed more thorough than before, and several perceived that clinicians spent more time answering their questions. Taken together, the researchers concluded that ambient AI scribes may improve the patient experience by strengthening verbal, non-verbal, and written communication between patients and clinicians—freeing the clinician's eyes and attention for the person in the room while potentially producing richer written documentation afterward. Comfort with the technology, however, was not automatic.

The study identified several factors that shaped how at ease patients felt with an AI tool listening to their medical conversation. Prior exposure to similar technologies mattered: patients familiar with voice assistants or comparable tools tended to be more comfortable. The physical and perceptual saliency of the device also played a role—when the scribe faded into the background, patients thought about it less.

A lack of privacy-related concerns, positive pre-existing relationships with their clinicians, and anticipated benefits to their own care all contributed to greater acceptance. Yet, as the study's authors note, the effect on patient experience has been understudied and largely limited to closed-ended surveys, which can miss the nuances of how patients actually perceive an AI presence in the exam room. Qualitative work of this kind offers a more textured picture of those perceptions.

The study has clear limitations that shape how its findings should be read. It involved twenty patients at a single academic medical center, drawn from specialties whose clinicians had already agreed to participate in a scribe trial—a population that may differ from patients elsewhere or from those whose clinicians declined the technology. As qualitative research, it describes reported experiences and perceived factors rather than measuring causal effects on outcomes, and the patients' perceptions of improved communication were self-reported rather than independently verified.

The authors present the results as contributing to an understanding of how these tools shape patient experience, not as proof of benefit. Even with those caveats, the study offers practical signals for health systems deploying scribes. The identified comfort factors—familiarity with similar technology, low device saliency, absence of privacy worries, strong patient-clinician relationships, and expected benefits—suggest that implementation efforts may succeed or fail on the human context surrounding the tool, not just its technical performance.

The broader implication is that ambient AI scribes should be evaluated as communication tools, not merely as documentation shortcuts.

Subject of Research: Patient experiences with ambient artificial intelligence scribes in ambulatory clinics

Article Title: The Ambulatory Patient Experience with Ambient Artificial Intelligence Scribes: A Qualitative Study

Article References: Nguyen, O. T., Afshar, M., Jaeb, M. A., Ryan Baumann, M., Resnik, F., Gravel Sullivan, A., Wills, G., Dambach, J., Mrotek, L. A., Quinn, M., Abramson, K., Kleinschmidt, P., Brazelton, T. B., III, Leaf, M. A., Twedt, H., Patterson, B., Liao, F., Rasmussen, S., Burnside, E. S., … Gordon, J. E. (2026). The Ambulatory Patient Experience with Ambient Artificial Intelligence Scribes: A Qualitative Study. Journal of General Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10931-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s11606-026-10931-4

Keywords: ambient AI scribes, patient experience, qualitative research, clinical documentation, artificial intelligence, ambulatory care, primary care, patient-clinician communication, health technology, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Ambulatory, Patient