AI (Artificial Intelligence)NCT07131709
Patient Satisfaction With AI Scribes
A study testing AI Generated Summary in people with AI (Artificial Intelligence) and Patient Satisfaction With AI in Doctors Consultations, run by University of Auckland, New Zealand at 1 site in New Zealand.
Trial summary
This randomised control trial study explores patient satisfaction with the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) notetaker in doctor's consultations. This involves an AI notetaker being used during doctor's consultations to summarise the conversation between the GP and patient. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- AI (Artificial Intelligence), Patient Satisfaction With AI in Doctors Consultations
- What is being tested?
- AI Generated Summary
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 191 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNew Zealand
- Study dates
- 11 Aug 2025to 21 Oct 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- This study requires participants to have an appointment with the GP involved in this study. Participants must be 18 years or older, be able to read, write, and understand English, able to provide full and informed consent, have access to a device that connects to the internet, and have an email address.
Who cannot join
- This study has very few exclusion criteria. The only participants who will be excluded are those under the age of 18, those who do not feel able to complete the questionnaires or participate, those who cannot understand/communicate in English (and therefore cannot provide informed consent), and people who do not have an email to be contacted by. This study will allow patient participants with a large variety of presenting health concerns and conditions to participate.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
This randomised control trial study explores patient satisfaction with the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) notetaker in doctor's consultations. This involves an AI notetaker being used during doctor's consultations to summarise the conversation between the GP and patient. Patient participants in this study will complete a pre-appointment demographic questionnaire, and attend their doctor's appointment as usual. After the appointment, they will complete a second questionnaire which asks about their experience and satisfaction with the consult, as well as their thoughts towards AI notetakers.
Participants will then be randomised into three groups. One group will receive standard care (no AI summary emailed to them), the second group will be emailed by their doctor an AI-generated summary of the appointment, and the third group will receive the AI summary + a next steps plan. The next steps plan is generated by AI, and outlines steps they need to take after attending their appointment, based on what was discussed with their doctor.
Read more
All participants will be emailed a follow-up questionnaire on day three which is tailored to the intervention they received. This re-assesses patient satisfaction with their appointment and the use of AI, as well as their trust in the AI notetaker. Those who receive an AI summary will be asked about their satisfaction with the summary, and those who received an AI summary + next steps plan will be asked about both the summary and next steps plan.
This study will be the first to explore patient satisfaction with the use of an AI scribe in doctor's consultations, and aims to gain a better understanding of patient's perspectives on AI notetakers in primary care settings.
Read the detailed description
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into primary care throughout various physical health contexts. Many clinicians use human-led AI systems to aid with task simplification and documentation in the form of digital scribes. AI scribes record clinical encounters and use natural language processing to convert speech to text, generating a conversation summary. This serves as an efficient and user-friendly tool that can substitute traditional notetaking methods.
While emerging evidence demonstrates the benefits of automating documentation for physicians, there is a paucity of research evaluating patients' satisfaction with AI being used during one-to-one consultations. Understanding patients' satisfaction with the use of AI in primary care settings is important because it can give insight into their perceived benefits and concerns toward the technology. These perceptions can affect patients' level of engagement and rapport with their healthcare provider, which is particularly important for optimising health outcomes.
Artificial intelligence is being utilised across various healthcare contexts, including detecting, diagnosing, and treating various health condition. Research demonstrates that physicians are largely receptive to AI, with one in four doctors using it regularly in some form and increasingly often. To date, research examining patient views on the use of AI in clinical settings remains limited, particularly with respect to primary care settings. Very little research has been conducted to explore patients' perspectives on AI notetakers being used in primary care settings. Most existing research focuses on physician's views on AI in primary settings, or patient's views on AI in specialised health settings. Existing literature across more specialised settings shows that patients are generally receptive toward AI being used during their care, although there is agreement that it should be used as a tool to support clinicians rather than be used unsupervised. For patients to benefit from AI scribes in primary care, they must first be receptive towards its use. Therefore, this is the first study to examine patients' satisfaction and trust with an AI scribe in doctor's consultations. It is important to research this in order to understand their preferred level of engagement with the technology.
This study will address this gap in the literature by providing experimental research on patient's self-reported satisfaction with AI scribes. This research will incorporate patients with a range of ethnicities, ages (18+) and health conditions/concerns. Researching in a primary care setting will enable our study to capture a range of views on artificial intelligence across varying presenting problems, without limiting participants based on their health condition. This study will help to indicate whether patients are receptive to AI notetakers being used during their appointments or not. Understanding people's satisfaction and trust in AI is important because it may effect their level of engagement with their doctor if they frequently use AI.
Providing patients with an AI summary of their appointment may improve overall appointment satisfaction. This intervention will remind patients what was discussed during the appointment (including what actions they are expected to take next), which may improve health outcomes by helping patients to take action on the doctor's recommendations. This intervention will be particularly beneficial for patients with complex health conditions who have to recall a substantial amount of information about their treatment.
- Being tested
- AI Generated Summary
- Keywords
- AI, Patient Satisfaction, Artificial Intelligence, AI in Primary Care, Patient satisfaction with AI, Doctor Consultations
- Medical subject headings
- Patient Satisfaction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
AI Generated SummaryOther
Summary of the doctor's appointment generated by AI (either with or without the Next Steps Plan, depending on the arm participants are allocated to).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| AI Summary | Experimental | Participants who are randomised to the 'AI Summary' arm will receive an AI-generated summary of their doctors appointment via email. Receives: Other: AI Generated Summary |
| AI Summary + Next Steps Plan | Experimental | Participants who are randomised to the 'AI Summary + Next Steps Plan' arm will receive an AI-generated summary of their doctor's appointment via email, as well as an AI-generated plan for their treatment as per the recommendations of the doctor. This may include actionable steps, such as 'collect prescription from pharmacy'. Receives: Other: AI Generated Summary |
| Control | No intervention | The control arm will receive standard care, where no summary of the appointment is emailed. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient Satisfaction
Self-reported patient satisfaction with the use of AI during doctor's consultations, including their overall satisfaction during the appointment, and their satisfaction with the AI summary after the appointment (treatment groups only), collected via questionnaire.
Adapted from the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-III (long form). 'I had enough time to discussed everything with the doctor' (strongly disagree - agree) 'The doctor listened to my concerns' 'I received enough information about my condition/treatment' 'Overall, how satisfied were you with your recent appointment with your doctor?' (Not at all satisfied - extremely satisfied)
Measured: From the participant's recruitment day (which is also their appointment day) until the follow-up questionnaire administered on day three.
Secondary outcomes (1)
Trust in AI
Will measure self-reported patient trust in AI note-taking software, such as whether participants thought AI would securely store their patient information. Measured via a questionnaire adapted from the Trust in Automation Scale (TIAS), including:
- 'I trust that the AI notetaker will keep my information private' (strongly disagree - strongly agree)
- 'I trust that the AI notetaker will securely store my information' (strongly disagree - strongly agree)
- 'How credible (trustworthy/believable) was the summary' (not credible at all - extremely credible)
- 'If you were discussing a sensitive topic with your doctor, how comfortable would you be with artificial intelligence being used to take notes?' (extremely uncomfortable - comfortable)
Measured: From initial recruitment (also the day of participant's appointment) through to their follow-up questionnaire on day three.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Aug 2025
- Study start11 Aug 2025
- Primary completion21 Oct 2025
- Study completion21 Oct 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for AI (Artificial Intelligence)Studies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 191 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Auckland, New Zealand
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Papatoetoe Family Doctors, The University of Auckland
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Keith J Petrie, University of Auckland, New Zealand
- Investigators
- Keith Petrie, Professor of Health Psychology, Principal investigator, University of Auckland, New Zealand
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07131709
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- AH29769
- Status last verified
- Dec 2025
- First submitted
- 5 Aug 2025
- Last updated
- 17 Dec 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Dec 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Patient Satisfaction With AI Scribes
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07131709
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AH29769
- Keywords
- AI, Patient Satisfaction, Artificial Intelligence, AI in Primary Care, Patient satisfaction with AI, Doctor Consultations
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 191 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Auckland, New ZealandUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Papatoetoe Family Doctors, The University of Auckland
- Study start
- 11 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 21 Oct 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 21 Oct 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 20 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This randomised control trial study explores patient satisfaction with the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) notetaker in doctor's consultations. This involves an AI notetaker being used during doctor's consultations to summarise the conversation between the GP and patient. Patient participants in this study will complete a pre-appointment demographic questionnaire, and attend their doctor's appointment as usual. After the appointment, they will complete a second questionnaire which asks about their experience and satisfaction with the consult, as well as their thoughts towards AI notetakers.
Participants will then be randomised into three groups. One group will receive standard care (no AI summary emailed to them), the second group will be emailed by their doctor an AI-generated summary of the appointment, and the third group will receive the AI summary + a next steps plan. The next steps plan is generated by AI, and outlines steps they need to take after attending their appointment, based on what was discussed with their doctor.
All participants will be emailed a follow-up questionnaire on day three which is tailored to the intervention they received. This re-assesses patient satisfaction with their appointment and the use of AI, as well as their trust in the AI notetaker. Those who receive an AI summary will be asked about their satisfaction with the summary, and those who received an AI summary + next steps plan will be asked about both the summary and next steps plan.
This study will be the first to explore patient satisfaction with the use of an AI scribe in doctor's consultations, and aims to gain a better understanding of patient's perspectives on AI notetakers in primary care settings.
Detailed description
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into primary care throughout various physical health contexts. Many clinicians use human-led AI systems to aid with task simplification and documentation in the form of digital scribes. AI scribes record clinical encounters and use natural language processing to convert speech to text, generating a conversation summary. This serves as an efficient and user-friendly tool that can substitute traditional notetaking methods.
While emerging evidence demonstrates the benefits of automating documentation for physicians, there is a paucity of research evaluating patients' satisfaction with AI being used during one-to-one consultations. Understanding patients' satisfaction with the use of AI in primary care settings is important because it can give insight into their perceived benefits and concerns toward the technology. These perceptions can affect patients' level of engagement and rapport with their healthcare provider, which is particularly important for optimising health outcomes.
Artificial intelligence is being utilised across various healthcare contexts, including detecting, diagnosing, and treating various health condition. Research demonstrates that physicians are largely receptive to AI, with one in four doctors using it regularly in some form and increasingly often. To date, research examining patient views on the use of AI in clinical settings remains limited, particularly with respect to primary care settings. Very little research has been conducted to explore patients' perspectives on AI notetakers being used in primary care settings. Most existing research focuses on physician's views on AI in primary settings, or patient's views on AI in specialised health settings. Existing literature across more specialised settings shows that patients are generally receptive toward AI being used during their care, although there is agreement that it should be used as a tool to support clinicians rather than be used unsupervised. For patients to benefit from AI scribes in primary care, they must first be receptive towards its use. Therefore, this is the first study to examine patients' satisfaction and trust with an AI scribe in doctor's consultations. It is important to research this in order to understand their preferred level of engagement with the technology.
This study will address this gap in the literature by providing experimental research on patient's self-reported satisfaction with AI scribes. This research will incorporate patients with a range of ethnicities, ages (18+) and health conditions/concerns. Researching in a primary care setting will enable our study to capture a range of views on artificial intelligence across varying presenting problems, without limiting participants based on their health condition. This study will help to indicate whether patients are receptive to AI notetakers being used during their appointments or not. Understanding people's satisfaction and trust in AI is important because it may effect their level of engagement with their doctor if they frequently use AI.
Providing patients with an AI summary of their appointment may improve overall appointment satisfaction. This intervention will remind patients what was discussed during the appointment (including what actions they are expected to take next), which may improve health outcomes by helping patients to take action on the doctor's recommendations. This intervention will be particularly beneficial for patients with complex health conditions who have to recall a substantial amount of information about their treatment.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| AI Summary | Experimental | Other: AI Generated SummaryParticipants who are randomised to the 'AI Summary' arm will receive an AI-generated summary of their doctors appointment via email. |
| AI Summary + Next Steps Plan | Experimental | Other: AI Generated SummaryParticipants who are randomised to the 'AI Summary + Next Steps Plan' arm will receive an AI-generated summary of their doctor's appointment via email, as well as an AI-generated plan for their treatment as per the recommendations of the doctor. This may include actionable steps, such as 'collect prescription from pharmacy'. |
| Control | No intervention | –The control arm will receive standard care, where no summary of the appointment is emailed. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- This study requires participants to have an appointment with the GP involved in this study. Participants must be 18 years or older, be able to read, write, and understand English, able to provide full and informed consent, have access to a device that connects to the internet, and have an email address.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- This study has very few exclusion criteria. The only participants who will be excluded are those under the age of 18, those who do not feel able to complete the questionnaires or participate, those who cannot understand/communicate in English (and therefore cannot provide informed consent), and people who do not have an email to be contacted by. This study will allow patient participants with a large variety of presenting health concerns and conditions to participate.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| AI Generated SummarySummary of the doctor's appointment generated by AI (either with or without the Next Steps Plan, depending on the arm participants are allocated to). | Other | AI Summary, AI Summary + Next Steps Plan |
Primary outcome
Patient Satisfaction
Time frame: From the participant's recruitment day (which is also their appointment day) until the follow-up questionnaire administered on day three.
Self-reported patient satisfaction with the use of AI during doctor's consultations, including their overall satisfaction during the appointment, and their satisfaction with the AI summary after the appointment (treatment groups only), collected via questionnaire. Adapted from the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-III (long form). 'I had enough time to discussed everything with the doctor' (strongly disagree - agree) 'The doctor listened to my concerns' 'I received enough information about my condition/treatment' 'Overall, how satisfied were you with your recent appointment with your doctor?' (Not at all satisfied - extremely satisfied)
1 secondary outcome
Trust in AI
Time frame: From initial recruitment (also the day of participant's appointment) through to their follow-up questionnaire on day three.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Dec 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for AI (Artificial Intelligence)
RecruitingObservational study
AI-powered ECG Analysis Using Willem™ Software in High-risk Cardiac Patients (WILLEM)
Cardiomyopathies, Cardiac Arrest
Recruiting
Managing Premyopia in Chinese Children Using Artificial Intelligence Assisted Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments Based Spectacle Lens: a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Pre-myopia, Myopia
Not yet recruitingObservational study
AI-assisted Tracheal Intubation in Children
Intubation
Recruiting
AI-assisted Home-based Intervention for ADHD Children
ADHD - Attention Deficit Disorder With Hyperactivity, ADHD - Combined Type
Not yet recruiting
AI Smart Glasses Feedback for Intubation Training in Medical Students
Intubation, Intratracheal, Medical Education
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Keith Petrie, Professor of Health Psychology principal investigator
University of Auckland, New Zealand
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing AI Generated Summary in people with AI (Artificial Intelligence) and Patient Satisfaction With AI in Doctors Consultations, run by University of Auckland, New Zealand at 1 site in New Zealand.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Dec 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in New Zealand. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patient Satisfaction (time frame: From the participant's recruitment day (which is also their appointment day) until the follow-up questionnaire administered on day three.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Dec 2025.