One AI scribe rollout reached clinicians very unevenly across the same health system
Among 2,901 eligible ambulatory clinicians, adoption ranged from 69.6% in community settings to 34.1% in academic settings. Use does not establish accuracy, safety or benefit.
The short version
- What happened
- Researchers linked electronic-health-record and vendor usage data for 2,901 eligible Johns Hopkins Medicine ambulatory clinicians from December 2024 to May 2025.
- Who it affects
- Clinicians and patients can experience the same health-system technology very differently depending on specialty, workflow and local support; a universal licence does not create uniform access or benefit.
- What remains unproven
- Observational, descriptive design with opt-in use
Keep in mind
Observational, descriptive design with opt-in use
One integrated US health system
Six-month enterprise-rollout window
Unmeasured workflow, consent and local-support factors
Usage logs did not measure note accuracy or editing effort
No safety, clinician well-being or patient outcomes
Source analysis · 1 linked source. Primary analysed source date: 26 October 2026.
Read the full report · 3 min The evidence, methods, implications and limitations
Enterprise availability did not produce enterprise-wide use
A peer-reviewed observational study tracked the first six months of an ambient AI scribe's enterprise rollout across Johns Hopkins Medicine. It included every eligible physician or advanced-practice provider with at least one ambulatory visit, producing a denominator of 2,901 clinicians. Electronic-health-record encounters were linked with vendor logs from December 2024 through May 2025; adoption meant using the scribe at least once, while monthly uptake measured the share of eligible visits in which it was used.
The contrast across settings was large. In community practices, 323 of 464 clinicians used the tool at least once—69.6%—compared with 830 of 2,436 academic clinicians, or 34.1%. Community attendings reached 75.0% adoption versus 37.6% among academic attendings; community advanced-practice providers reached 71.8% versus 26.0%. Median visit-level use among community attendings and advanced-practice providers rose from roughly 40% to 80–90%, while many academic groups increased only modestly.[1]
Uptake identifies implementation gaps, not clinical success
Specialty differences were equally striking. Community general paediatrics reached 68.5% adoption and community internal medicine 66.7%, while academic general surgery was 15.6%, obstetrics and gynaecology 17.9% and psychiatry 18.9%. The analysis also described slow-and-steady adopters, early users who stopped, transient users and late adopters. Because participation was opt-in, the patterns may reflect workflow fit, patient consent, local champions, documentation burden or tool performance; the study cannot tell which factor caused them.
Most importantly, a usage log does not show whether an AI-generated note was accurate, safe or efficient to correct. The research did not measure documentation quality, clinician well-being, patient experience or clinical outcomes, and its six-month single-system window cannot establish sustainability or generalisability. Hospitals can use the figures to target workflow assessment and specialty-specific support, but not to claim clinical value. Confidence would rise when adoption data are linked to audited note quality, correction burden, equity, safety and patient outcomes over longer periods. The researchers reported no funding or competing interests.[1]
The distinction that matters
The same rollout produced different adoption patterns
Each percentage uses eligible clinicians in that setting as its denominator and means at least one recorded use.
Community settings
323 of 464 clinicians
69.6% tried the scribe
Academic settings
830 of 2,436 clinicians
34.1% tried the scribe
Clinical benefit
Not measured by usage logs
Accuracy and safety unknown