Ambient Artificial Intelligence Scribes: A Pilot Survey of Perspectives on the Utility and Documentation Burden in Palliative Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence to support ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes in healthcare to improve medical documentation by generating timely and comprehensive notes. Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology, this study evaluated the utility and potential time savings of an ambient AI scribe, Scribeberry, (V2), in a palliative medicine outpatient setting, comparing it to the standard practice of dictation. METHODS: This prospective quality improvement study was conducted at an academic medical center by two palliative medicine resident physicians. Residents documented patient visits using a freely available ambient AI scribe software program, Scribeberry, as well as using standard dictation software. Primary outcome measures included the editing time for the AI scribe and the dictating and editing times for a dictated manuscript, as well as subjective assessments of the accuracy, organization, and overall usefulness of the AI-generated clinical letters. RESULTS: < 0.025) in the time spent on clinical documentation, while a second resident saw essentially no improvement. The resident who experienced time savings with the ambient AI scribe also demonstrated a significant improvement in the graded organization and usefulness of the AI outputs over time, while the other resident did not demonstrate significant improvements in any of the metrics assessed over the course of this project. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study describes the use of an ambient AI scribe software program, Scribeberry, in the community palliative medicine context. Our results showed a mixed response with respect to time savings and improvements in the organization, accuracy, and overall clinical usefulness of the AI-generated notes over time. Given the small sample size and short study duration, this study is insufficiently powered to draw conclusions with respect to AI scribe benefits in real-world contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".