Longitudinal effects of ambient artificial intelligence scribe use on documentation burden and financial productivity in primary care: a quasi-experimental study
In brief
AI scribes cut note-writing time 16% and pajama time 19%
Among 220 primary care clinicians, note-writing time was 16% lower 150 days after AI scribe access; evening and overnight "pajama time" fell 19%, and time outside scheduled hours fell 13%. Work relative value units rose 2%, while note length did not change. The quasi-experimental findings suggest benefits built over time, but do not establish that scribes alone caused them.
- Journal
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA (Q1)
- Published
- 18 October 2026
- Study design
- Non-randomized / quasi-experimental trial
- Evidence level
- Level 2, Moderate (CEBM 2b)
- Authors
- R J Waken, Sunny S Lou, Mackenzie Hofford, Elise Eiden, Carrie Burk, Seunghwan Kim, et al.
- PMID
- 42893542
- DOI
- 10.1093/jamia/ocag151
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Health Informatics (paper of the day, 19 October 2026): Ambient AI scribe impact on documentation and productivity
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the longitudinal effects of an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe use in primary care on outcomes related to documentation time, note writing patterns, and clinician financial productivity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study with an interrupted time-series design to ascertain the effect of AI scribe use on note writing time, time outside of scheduled hours (TOSH), pajama time (5:30PM-7:00aM), note length, note closure <24 h, and work relative value units (wRVU). For each primary care clinician (physician, advanced practice provider), date of initial access was day 0; each measure was calculated for 150 days prior (pre-period) and after (post-period) day zero. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty clinicians (mean age = 43.7, 70.9% females; 56.4% physicians) from 36 clinics, conducting 314 845 patient encounters were included. Compared to the pre-period, there was 7% decrease in note writing time at day 0 (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.93, 95% credible interval [CI] [0.89, 0.98]), increasing to 16% decrease by day 150 (IRR 0.84, 95% CI [0.82, 0.87]). There was no change in pajama time, TOSH, or wRVU at day 0; however, at day 150, there was a 19% decrease in pajama time (0.81, 95% CI [0.73, 0.90]), 13% decrease in TOSH (0.87, 95% CI [0.77, 0.98]), and a 2% increase in wRVU (1.02, 95% CI [1.01, 1.04]). At day 0, there was a 5% increase in note closures (1.05, 95% CI [1.02, 1.08]), with no difference to pre-period levels by day 150. There were no changes in note length at day 0 or day 150. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There were persistent changes in AI scribe use measures over time as clinicians situated these tools within their workflows.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.