Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2026 Mar 3:10:e80401.
doi: 10.2196/80401.

AI-Powered Ambient Scribe Technology Experiences Among Emergency Physicians: Cross-Sectional, Mixed Methods Pilot Survey Study

Taylor Marquis  1 , Matthew Kopp  1 , Jared S Anderson  1 , Anthony M Napoli  1 , Linda L Brown  1 , Yosef Berlyand  1
Affiliations

AI-Powered Ambient Scribe Technology Experiences Among Emergency Physicians: Cross-Sectional, Mixed Methods Pilot Survey Study

Taylor Marquis et al. JMIR Form Res. .

Abstract

Background: Health care organizations have started to implement artificial intelligence-powered ambient scribe technology in clinical documentation workflows. Early outpatient studies have shown mixed results. Few studies have evaluated ambient scribes in the emergency department (ED). Due to differences in setting and patient acuity between the ED and ambulatory clinics, there remains a pressing need to research this technology in the ED.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate emergency physicians' (EPs) satisfaction, perceived documentation efficiency, after-shift documentation time, and trust in ambient scribe-generated notes compared with in-person scribes or independent documentation, and to identify ED-specific challenges.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 16 board-certified adult and pediatric EPs who were granted access to the ambient scribe technology across 4 EDs. EPs used the ambient scribe for several months before completing a survey with multiple-choice and free-text responses. We performed a mixed methods analysis by summarizing quantitative data through descriptive statistics and performing a practical thematic analysis on free-text responses.

Results: Of the 16 EPs, 14 (87.5%) completed the survey. Among respondents, 9 (64.3%; 95% CI 38.7%-83.7%) reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the ambient scribe, while 3 (21.4%; 95% CI 7.6%-47.6%) expressed dissatisfaction. When given the option, 7 (50%; 95% CI 26.8%-73.2%) respondents preferred the ambient scribe, 4 (28.5%; 95% CI 11.7%-54.6%) preferred in-person scribes, and none (95% CI 0%-20.6%) preferred independent documentation. Among previous users of in-person scribes, 50% (4/8; 95% CI 21.5%-78.5%) favored the ambient scribe. The ambient scribe was reported to improve documentation efficiency (10/14, 71.4%; 95% CI 45.4%-88.3%) and reduce after-shift documentation time (9/14, 64.3%; 95% CI 38.7%-83.7%). However, only 42.9% (6/14; 95% CI 22.3%-69.2%) of respondents trusted the accuracy of ambient scribe-generated notes, compared with 75% (6/8; 95% CI 40.9%-92.9%) who trusted in-person scribes. Few respondents found the ambient scribe helpful for physical examinations (3/13, 23.1%; 95% CI 8.2%-50.3%) or medical decision-making documentation (5/14, 35.7%; 95% CI 16.3%-61.2%). A thematic analysis identified 5 themes: challenges due to the workplace environment, challenges due to the patient population, workflow improvement, workflow harm, and narrow usefulness.

Conclusions: This mixed methods pilot study is among the first to evaluate ambient scribe technology in the ED. Our results add ED-specific insights to literature focused on the outpatient setting. Our findings reveal the potential for enhancing documentation efficiency and reducing administrative burden while highlighting setting-specific challenges. While most EPs preferred artificial intelligence-assisted documentation over independent charting, confidence in documentation accuracy and functionality remains limited compared with human scribes and varies by note component. As the demand for efficiency in emergency medicine continues to grow, scalable solutions such as ambient scribes could play a pivotal role if functionality, reliability, and physician trust can be further optimized.

Keywords: AI; artificial intelligence; clinical documentation; electronic health records; emergency department operations; health care technology; medical scribes; natural language processing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: YB reports serving as an unpaid advisor to Esplanade Ventures.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overall satisfaction with artificial intelligence–powered ambient scribe technology among 14 board-certified emergency and pediatric emergency physicians who completed a cross-sectional survey across 4 emergency departments in a single urban health system. The satisfied category includes answers for very satisfied or satisfied. The dissatisfied category includes answers for very dissatisfied or dissatisfied.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Physician-centered outcomes of documentation efficiency and time spent on documentation after shift using artificial intelligence–powered ambient scribe technology or an in-person scribe. Data were collected from 14 board-certified emergency and pediatric emergency physicians who completed a cross-sectional survey across 4 emergency departments in a single urban health system. The agree category includes answers for strongly agree or agree. The disagree category includes answers for strongly disagree or disagree.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Preferences for the use of an ambient scribe or in-person scribes for elements of documentation are shown. Data were collected from 14 board-certified emergency and pediatric emergency physicians who completed a cross-sectional survey across 4 emergency departments in a single urban health system. The agree category includes answers for strongly agree or agree. The disagree category includes answers for strongly disagree or disagree. MDM: medical decision-making.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hill RG Jr, Sears LM, Melanson SW. 4000 clicks: a productivity analysis of electronic medical records in a community hospital ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2013 Nov;31(11):1591–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.028.S0735-6757(13)00405-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky C, Hasan O, Satele D, Sloan J, West CP. Relationship between clerical burden and characteristics of the electronic environment with physician burnout and professional satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jul;91(7):836–48. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.05.007.S0025-6196(16)30215-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tajirian T, Stergiopoulos V, Strudwick G, Sequeira L, Sanches M, Kemp J, Ramamoorthi K, Zhang T, Jankowicz D. The influence of electronic health record use on physician burnout: cross-sectional survey. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jul 15;22(7):e19274. doi: 10.2196/19274. https://www.jmir.org/2020/7/e19274/ v22i7e19274 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tai-Seale M, Olson CW, Li J, Chan AS, Morikawa C, Durbin M, Wang W, Luft HS. Electronic health record logs indicate that physicians split time evenly between seeing patients and desktop medicine. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017 Apr 01;36(4):655–62. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0811. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/28373331 36/4/655 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berg S. Which physician specialties are seeing a drop in burnout? American Medical Association. 2025. May 13, [2025-11-29]. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/physician-health/which-phys... .

LinkOut - more resources