Mapping Existing Evidence on Physicians' and Patients' Experiences with GenAI in Clinical Communication and Documentation: A Rapid Review
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Healthcare professionals (physicians) and patients using or exposed to generative AI tools in clinical settings |
| I — Intervention | Generative AI tools (chatbots, ambient scribes) for clinical communication and documentation |
| C — Comparator | Traditional clinical communication and documentation methods (implied comparison) |
| O — Outcomes | Experiences, attitudes, perceptions, acceptability, usability, and ethical implications of GenAI use |
Bottom Line
This rapid review identifies a significant evidence gap in understanding patient experiences with generative AI tools in clinical settings. While 41 studies were mapped, the overwhelming focus on physician perspectives (75.6%) leaves patient voices underrepresented. The review highlights important themes including usability, acceptability, and ethical implications, but lacks the methodological rigour expected of systematic reviews. No quality assessment was performed, and the search strategy appears limited. The findings suggest current evidence is insufficient to guide equitable GenAI implementation in healthcare. Clinicians should approach GenAI adoption cautiously, ensuring robust patient engagement and ethical oversight. The review's call for diverse cohorts and real-world validation studies is warranted before widespread clinical integration.
Key Findings
Effect Size: Not applicable - descriptive mapping review
Primary Outcome: Mapping of existing evidence on GenAI experiences in clinical settings
Nnt Or Sensitivity: 41 studies included with 75.6% focusing on physicians, 9.8% on patients exclusively, 14.6% on both groups
Clinical Application
Limited by insufficient evidence base and predominant focus on physician rather than patient perspectives Relevant to Australian healthcare digitisation initiatives, but requires consideration of TGA regulatory framework for AI medical devices and RACGP guidelines on digital health tools Healthcare professionals and patients in settings considering or implementing GenAI tools for clinical communication and documentation
Abstract
GenAI tools like chatbots and ambient scribes are increasingly used in clinical documentation, raising ethical and safety concerns. This rapid review maps existing evidence on experiences and attitudes of physicians and patients toward using GenAI in clinical communication and documentation. Structured searches were conducted in PubMed and Web of Science. Studies were screened using PICO criteria. Data were extracted and summarized descriptively, with high-order thematic analysis of research aims and emerging recommendations. 41 studies were included: 75.6% focused on physicians, 9.8% examined patient perspectives exclusively, and 14.6% included both. Some of the themes identified were usability, exploration of perceptions and expectations, acceptability, and ethical implications. Recommendations emphasized the need for diverse cohorts, real-world validation, and ethical considerations. Current literature was skewed toward physician perspectives. Broader, meaningful inclusion of patients is needed to support equitable and trustworthy GenAI integration in healthcare.
References
- 1.Garcia Sanchez, C., Kharko, A., Hägglund, M., Riggare, S., & Blease, C. (2026). Mapping existing evidence on physicians' and patients' experiences with GenAI in clinical communication and documentation: A rapid review. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI260256
Related Research
The Journal of rheumatology
Examining the Role of Wearables in Inflammatory Arthritis Care: A Narrative Literature Review
3 Aug 2026
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ChatGPT in urogynecology: Comparing large language model responses to human experts
3 Aug 2026
Sleep medicine
Concordance of wearable device sleep metrics with patient-reported sleep quality: A systematic review
3 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service