AI-scribes boost GP efficiency but raise ethics concerns in NZ care
The study led by the University of Otago, Wellington, involved 197 providers working in primary care and documented their experiences with AI-scribes during consultations. The majority of respondents were general practitioners, but the group also included nurses, nurse practitioners, rural emergency care providers, and practice managers.
Findings showed that 40 per cent of those surveyed were using AI-scribes for patient note-taking. However, only 66 per cent had read the software's terms and conditions, and 59 per cent sought patient consent before using the tool during consultations.
Mixed experiences
The responses collected painted a nuanced picture, with users expressing both optimism and frustration. Most who used AI-scribes reported they were helpful or very helpful, while 47 per cent estimated that using the tool in every consultation could save them between 30 minutes and two hours per day. However, a significant minority indicated that these gains could be offset by the time it took to review and correct AI-generated notes.
Some users described notable concerns around the accuracy, completeness, and conciseness of the notes produced. One doctor observed, "(It) missed some critical negative findings. This meant I didn't trust it." Another remarked on the frequency of errors, referred to as 'hallucinations', noting that, "the hallucination rate was quite high, and often quite subtle."
Practical challenges
Difficulties with understanding local accents, vocabulary, and te reo Māori were also mentioned. Some professionals described pausing the AI tool when discussing information that could identify the patient, such as names or dates of birth.
The presence of AI-scribes altered the manner in which clinicians interacted with patients. More than half the respondents said the use of the tool changed the dynamic of consultations, requiring doctors to verbalise physical examination findings and thought processes so the AI could capture relevant information. One surveyed GP recalled, "Today someone said, 'I've got pain here', and pointed to the area, and so I said out loud 'oh, pain in the right upper quadrant?'"
Broader implications
Professor Angela Ballantyne, Lead Researcher and Bioethicist in the Department of Primary Health Care and General Practise at the University of Otago, Wellington, said the adoption of AI transcription services is taking place rapidly in primary care, even as regulations and guidelines are still being established. "They need to be vigilant about checking patient notes for accuracy. However, as many survey respondents noted, carefully checking each AI-generated clinical note eats into, and sometimes negates any time savings."
Professor Ballantyne highlighted the importance of balancing the benefits of AI-scribes with patient rights and data security needs. She stated, "Most AI-scribes rely on international cloud-based platforms (often privately owned and controlled), for processing and storing data, which raises questions about where data is stored, who has access to it, and how it can be protected from cyber threats. There are also Aotearoa-specific data governance issues that need to be recognised and resolved, particularly around Māori data sovereignty."
Some respondents noted that the technology allowed them to engage more directly with patients during consultations, reporting increased eye contact and more active listening time. This, they felt, improved rapport and communication.
Consent and regulation
National guidance on the use of AI-scribes in healthcare is still developing. The National Artificial Intelligence and Algorithm Expert Advisory Group (NAIAEAG) at Health New Zealand – Te Whatu Ora has endorsed two AI-scribe tools, Heidi Health and iMedX, after considering privacy, security, and ethical issues. Medical Council of New Zealand guidance, expected to be released later this year, is anticipated to require explicit patient consent for the use of AI transcription tools.
Professor Ballantyne commented on the consent process: "Patients should be given the right to opt out of the use of AI and still access care, and adequate training and guidelines must be put in place for health providers."
She said AI technology is evolving, which may help address some current ethical and practical concerns. "Coupled with appropriate training, good governance and patient consent, the future of AI scribes holds much promise."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Exercise physiology students helping folk stay mobile
Jeffrey Batts reckons if he can get in or out of his car without his leg locking up, he is having a good day. The 63-year-old has arthritis in his right hip, which flares up from time to time, sometimes leaving him unable to move. "It's sort of like the hip's jamming. "If I put my leg in the wrong position, then I can't move the leg and it goes into spasm. "Then I have to call the ambulance — or like the other day, this lady saw me in trouble and gave me a ride to my house." Mr Batts said he had prescribed painkillers to help with the pain, and he was trying to get an appointment with a specialist so he could get a hip replacement. But in the meantime, he was hoping students at the University of Otago's Connection Through Movement Studio might be able to help him manage the pain and stay mobile enough to do everyday activities. "I can't do quite as much as I used to do, you know. "Just getting into the car, that's enough to set it off." Mr Batts is one of about 45 members of the Dunedin community who attend the studio each week. University of Otago postgraduate clinical exercise physiology student Aliya Mottus is part of a group of clinical exercise physiology students who have created the studio, where they work with members of the Dunedin community with illnesses or ailments, to help improve their wellbeing. She said they created personalised exercise programmes for each client and ran a range of group sessions, such as pregnancy classes and the "Strong and Steady" programme, which helped people with balance issues. "We work with people who have cardiovascular conditions like hypertension, people that have had heart attacks or coronary artery disease. We've got a couple of people with chronic fatigue or neurological conditions, people with different types of arthritis, people with diabetes — even some with cancer are coming through." She said exercise physiology aimed to help people maintain or re-establish physical capacity, especially those with degenerative conditions. "If you can help maintain that as long as possible, it helps improve overall quality of life." The studio had been running for about 10 weeks and clients had already made major progress, including some who could now touch their toes, climb the stairs to their front door, or ride a bike. "They may seem like really little things, but they're really big wins for our clients, which is so rewarding for us to see." While the studio was helping people in the community, it was also helping the students to build the 360 clinical hours to get their accreditation with Sport and Exercise Science New Zealand or Clinical Exercise Physiology New Zealand. "So this functions as an outlet for us to work with people with different complex and chronic conditions." The studio would remain open until November 7, and would continue to operate next year.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Analysing past pandemics to inform future responses
About 9000 people died in six weeks when the 1918 influenza pandemic swept through New Zealand, making it the largest natural disaster in the country's history. Now University of Otago researchers have joined forces with researchers at Durham University (United Kingdom) and the University of Tubingen (Germany) to complete the first digital analysis of the pandemic, in a bid to provide insights for managing future infectious disease emergencies. Also known as the Great Influenza Epidemic and the Spanish flu, the deadly global pandemic lasted from 1918-20, and was caused by the H1N1 subtype of the influenza A virus. The earliest documented case was in March 1918, in Kansas, United States, and a month later there were cases in France, Germany and the UK. It was quickly spread around the globe by troops during World War 1. Between 1918 and 1920, nearly a third of the global population (an estimated 500 million people) had been infected, and up to 50 million people are estimated to have died from the virus, making it the deadliest pandemic in history. Project co-leader and University of Otago Health Protection Aotearoa Research Centre director Prof Michael Baker said the pandemic was still the largest natural disaster in New Zealand's history, killing about 0.8% of the population — the equivalent of about 40,000 people today. "While the social history of this pandemic has been comprehensively described by historians, notably Prof Geoff Rice, there has not been a full epidemiological analysis using case data. "This project will fill that gap and provide insights into how a poorly controlled modern influenza pandemic could affect the country." The researchers now had a digital database that showed who got infected and when in 1918, and who died, which would allow them to see how the virus moved through New Zealand. "This is why influenza is actually quite worrying, because it has a very short incubation period, and it would sweep through the country very rapidly. "If we had a comparable influenza virus arriving in New Zealand tomorrow, it would probably infect most of the country within a few weeks, it would absolutely overwhelm the health system, and we would not be using an elimination approach at that stage — it would be a mitigation approach, where we just try to dampen it down. "It would put massive strain on our ability to manage people with ventilators and so on, so it could cause 40,000 deaths in that period of time if it behaved the same way." Project leader and Durham University bioarchaeologist Prof Rebecca Gowland said the project was the first step towards a more comprehensive programme aimed at better understanding past global pandemics, including the Black Death in 1348, the 6th century Justinian plague in Europe and the Tudor-era English Sweating Sickness. The aim was to better understand how social connections and differences influenced the spread of pandemics through the centuries, and how individuals and societies responded to the threat they pose.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
‘De-extinction' criticism sparks smear campaign
University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence holds a moa bone extracted from a site in Central Otago. PHOTO: STEPHEN JAQUIERY An Otago paleogenetics researcher who has been critical of Colossal Biosciences' plan to "de-extinct" the giant moa has been targeted by online "smear" articles aimed at discrediting him. University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence has publicly said there was no such thing as de-extinction, and the American company's plan was "a pipe dream that will likely never take flight". "Once something is extinct, it is gone." He said Colossal would be creating a genetically engineered emu or some other genetically engineered ratite that may look like a moa, but was unlikely to function or sound like a moa. Colossal also claimed to have iwi engagement in the project, but Prof Rawlence said based on his experience working with Ngāi Tahu, there was no appetite for de-extinction among many of the individual rūnanga. Now, supporters of Colossal have launched a "smear campaign" on him and other top scientists around the globe who have publicly criticised the de-extinction project. He said there had been three AI-generated articles published in media around the world attacking his professional credibility. One called him a "hypocrite" because he also uses fragmentary ancient DNA to reconstruct lost ecosystems — the same technique Colossal will use to bring back the giant moa. The article said he could not criticise Colossal without criticising his own work. "That's complete rubbish because we're very conscious of the limitations of the data that we use, and we don't over-extrapolate and over-extend our conclusions. "Colossal are selling that they're de-extincting things when they're not. I'm not selling my work as de-extinction." The second "hit piece" accused Prof Rawlence of being more concerned about being a media fixture than actually doing research. "It said I should go focus on improving my mediocre publication record. "My publication record — well that speaks for itself." The third one that came out earlier this week said he was "misappropriating and misrepresenting the Maori voice" around the extinction. "All the engagement work I have done around sequencing moa genomes or looking at New Zealand's taonga species with iwi, hapu, runanga and trusts around the country, means we know the feelings of mana whenua and they are against de-extinction." Colossal chief executive Ben Lamm has told media the company had no involvement in the AI-generated articles. However, Prof Rawlence said it was clear the company did not like the critical commentary. He published a comment piece on The Conversation website about de-extinction, topped with a "tongue-in-cheek headline" saying: "First the dire wolf, now NZ's giant moa: why real 'de-extinction' is unlikely to fly". On July 12, Mr Lamm posted on X about the article, saying: "There are sometimes crazy, weird conspiracy articles about @colossal which make us laugh — But the dumbest headline of all time goes to this article whose author doesn't even know moas couldn't fly. "If the moas [sic] fly, we really up. LOL. I wish people did more research. DUMB — LOLOLOLOLOL." Prof Rawlence said there was also a YouTube video from Colossal about de-extinction science that called its detractors "armchair critics". "Colossal may not be behind the AI-generated smear campaign, but they definitely are wanting to smear and take down critical commentary." Prof Rawlence said he was not concerned about the campaign to discredit his work. "It's water off a moa's back for me. "Under the Education Act, universities have a critic and conscience role enshrined in the legislation, so we can speak out within our area of expertise — which is exactly what we have done. "We provided critical scientific commentary that we did not support de-extinction and that there were serious scientific, ethical, ecological and indigenous engagement concerns. "If the supporters of Colossal had any substantial critique to counter our scientific commentary, they would have used it. "Instead, they're resorting to this — low blows and personal attacks. So to me, it just means our messages are actually hitting home." He believed Colossal's actions were very "Trump-ish". "If a CEO or a director of a museum or the boss of a university put this tweet out, he would be called up in front of his board, reprimanded, or even worse. "But this is Trump's America, and everything is upside down. "So I wouldn't call it very inspiring behaviour at all."
