AI tools for doctors: Do they really save time?

Around 40% of Australian GPs are using AI scribes in their clinical practice, according to a November 2025 poll by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP).

Like a digital assistant, AI scribes ‘listen’ to consultations and use generative AI technology to draft structured clinical notes, patient information summaries and other administrative materials.

While AI tools for doctors have great potential for clinical workflow optimisation, questions remain: how much time do they save in practice, and do the benefits outweigh the risks? 

Here’s what the evidence shows about AI tools for doctors, and how GPs can ensure the benefits don’t come at the cost of human oversight.

The time-saving potential of AI: What the evidence shows 

Studies have supported the idea that AI scribes can save clinicians time — though the impact may be less dramatic than anticipated. 

A large, US multi-site study published in JAMA in April 2026 found that clinicians using AI scribes spent 16 minutes less per day on documentation — a relative time saving of 10%. For primary care clinicians, this almost doubled to nearly 27 minutes per day saved.

This is consistent with previous studies, which have suggested modest, but potentially meaningful, benefits in clinical workflow optimisation and reduced administrative burden. 

Where AI tools may not save time

It’s well documented that AI scribes can make errors, omit details, and even ‘hallucinate’ things that aren’t there, which creates significant clinical risk. There’s also a tendency for ‘note bloat’ — where increased documentation length can obscure important information.

That means time saved with AI-generated notes may be instead shifted to time spent reviewing, editing and checking records, the JAMA study authors observed.

Notably, the study also highlighted that AI scribe use did not significantly reduce time spent on documentation outside of working hours.

Reducing clinician burnout

However, a small amount of time saved may still have a positive effect. Previous studies have linked the use of AI scribes to reduced clinician burnout and improved wellbeing scores. 

The JAMA study authors suggested this may indicate that doctors’ perception of reduced administrative burden can still be beneficial.

“While AI scribes may not greatly reduce Electronic Health Record time, it’s possible that clinicians view reallocation of time from documentation as valuable, thus influencing improvements in clinician satisfaction,” they wrote.

AI and patient trust: The importance of human oversight  

The RACGP notes that AI tools can help facilitate a better doctor-patient experience, as GPs are able to spend more time facing and focusing on patients during consultations, instead of taking notes. 

However, human oversight is essential for good clinical care — and it plays an important role in patient trust.

This is highlighted by a recent study by Dr Wei Zhou, Professor Rashina Hoda and Dr Joycelyn Ling, which suggested Australian patients’ attitudes towards AI in healthcare are ‘cautiously positive, but conditional’.

“AI in healthcare is influenced not just by what AI can do, but by whether people trust how it is used,” Dr Zhou told InSight+. 

"While AI has enormous potential to support healthcare, concerns remain about issues such as potential inaccuracies, bias, and privacy.”

Study participants reported they would be comfortable receiving an AI-generated consultation summary from their doctor — but only if they were confident the doctor had reviewed and approved it. 

“Our research suggests that maintaining appropriate human oversight is important for fostering consumer trust, reinforcing that AI should support, rather than replace, clinicians' judgement.” 

Meeting your professional obligations while using AI 

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the National Boards have issued guidance on safe and responsible use of AI tools for doctors.

“This guidance sets out the principles health practitioners need to consider when using AI in practice. These include accountability, understanding, transparency and informed consent,” a spokesperson for AHPRA told InSight+.  

“Doctors using AI in healthcare are responsible for delivering safe and quality care and for ensuring they meet the professional obligations set out in the Medical Board's Code of Conduct.”

Using AI scribes: A checklist for GPs 

To ensure safe and responsible use of AI tools, GPs can use the following checklist.

• Choose an AI scribe carefully and do due diligence to protect patient data privacy.
• Get patient consent before using an AI scribe (and ideally document this).
• Explain to patients in plain language why and how you’re using AI tools, and how you will maintain clinical oversight and privacy.
• Carefully review all AI-generated outputs to ensure accuracy and quality. 
• Develop policies and procedures for using AI tools in your clinical workflow, and ensure all staff receive appropriate guidance on safe and responsible use.   
• Update your privacy policy to disclose use of AI and how you will safeguard patient information. 
• Regularly review your use of AI tools and assess how the benefits and costs are playing out in practice. 

FAQs

What are the potential risks of AI tools for doctors?

When using AI scribes, GPs should be aware of key risks including:

• privacy and security (how patient information is handled and stored, who can access it, and what will it be used for), and
• clinical accuracy (how reliably the tool can capture and interpret information, and what happens if it makes errors).

Do doctors need patient consent to use an AI scribe?

Yes, doctors have a professional obligation to obtain patient consent before using an AI scribe. In some Australian states, recording a conversation without consent is a criminal offence — so it’s important to have a process for obtaining informed consent in your clinical workflow.

Are AI tools for doctors regulated in Australia? 

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) only regulates AI tools that it classifies as ‘medical devices’ — for example, if they are designed to assist in clinical decisions. Some AI scribes meet this definition, but most don’t, so they’re not regulated by the TGA.

How do patients feel about doctors using AI scribes?

A recent study suggested that Australian patients were ‘cautiously positive’ about AI in healthcare — but only if there was clinician oversight. This highlights the RACGP’s stance — that AI tools for doctors should only be used to assist in clinical workflow optimisation, not replace the work of a clinician. 

Where can I get more guidance on AI tools for doctors?

Some useful resources for GPs include the RACGP’s Artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, AHPRA’s Meeting your professional obligations when using artificial intelligence in healthcare, and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care’s AI clinical use guide.