Registration form informs patients that if they do not wish AI to be used, they will need their referring doctor to refer them to a different service provider
I have no problem with anyone using an AI scribe (though I would prefer one that was on device rather than cloud based). I am aware of things like Lyrebird Health that integrate with EHR management software - frankly, anything that allows the practitioner to focus more solely on the patient is a good thing. After all, they are meant to be treating the patient in front of them, not the computer screen.
The prior point about legal liability is accurate IMHO. Medical health records are functionally a legal record, and should be treated as such. Responsibility for review, redress of inaccuracies etc cannot be waved away as “ChatGPT did it”. If the practitioner is willing to take the onus of that on, and treats the scribed document with the same fidelity, chain of provenance etc as other records, I’m probably ok with it.
Requiring patients to consent to cloud-based AI scribing as a condition of access is where it gets uncomfortable, and your point about local alternatives is exactly why. If deterministic, on-device transcription exists and does the job, the justification for mandating a cloud pipeline through a psychiatric service gets pretty dicey, pretty fast.
I think I can see a way to have Dragon Dictate record the audio, convert it to text and then have on device AI pull out relevant bits to populate a template. That doesn’t abrogate the need to actually LISTEN to the patient but it might fix that ‘capture’ part of the funnel.
I’m with you on this I think.
I have no problem with anyone using an AI scribe (though I would prefer one that was on device rather than cloud based). I am aware of things like Lyrebird Health that integrate with EHR management software - frankly, anything that allows the practitioner to focus more solely on the patient is a good thing. After all, they are meant to be treating the patient in front of them, not the computer screen.
The prior point about legal liability is accurate IMHO. Medical health records are functionally a legal record, and should be treated as such. Responsibility for review, redress of inaccuracies etc cannot be waved away as “ChatGPT did it”. If the practitioner is willing to take the onus of that on, and treats the scribed document with the same fidelity, chain of provenance etc as other records, I’m probably ok with it.
Requiring patients to consent to cloud-based AI scribing as a condition of access is where it gets uncomfortable, and your point about local alternatives is exactly why. If deterministic, on-device transcription exists and does the job, the justification for mandating a cloud pipeline through a psychiatric service gets pretty dicey, pretty fast.
I think I can see a way to have Dragon Dictate record the audio, convert it to text and then have on device AI pull out relevant bits to populate a template. That doesn’t abrogate the need to actually LISTEN to the patient but it might fix that ‘capture’ part of the funnel.