Truace
Subscribe

Ambient AI scribe rollout at a high-volume cancer center

Source article: Ambient Artificial Intelligent Scribes in Oncology: Impact on Clinician Experience and Documentation Burden

PURPOSE Ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, widely implemented to reduce clinician burden and dissatisfaction, are not optimized for oncology. We evaluated this technology at-scale at a high-volume cancer center. METHODS This prospective mixed-methods study used surveys, electronic health record (EHR), and utilization data to assess adoption, burden, and satisfaction with an ambient AI scribe that was implemented from June to September 2025. Descriptive statistics categorized clinicians as adopters (3+…

By the Truvace desk2 min read1 sourcePeer-reviewedTRV-2026-1819· cite & verify
Ambient Artificial Intelligent Scribes in Oncology: Impact on Clinician Experience and Documentation Burden
"McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research" by wackybadger is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/.
Trace impact readingContested
P 64The P score combines the specificity and measured human impact of the grounded problem claim with the strength of this Trace’s cited sources.

Both sides are scored from claims and sources, not community votes.

G 68The G score combines the specificity and measured human impact of the grounded gain claim with the strength of this Trace’s cited sources.

In brief

A cancer center introduced an ambient AI scribe between June and September 2025 and studied it prospectively with surveys, electronic health record data, and utilization data. Fewer than one in five clinicians used it, and most users were physicians from medicine and surgery.

The results suggest the tool can be well received by those who use it, yet the objective workload data do not show a clear reduction in documentation burden. Why uptake was low and how to tailor the tool to oncology workflows remain open questions.

Main points

  1. 190 of 958 clinicians (19.8%) used the tool, including 124 adopters and 66 attempted adopters.
  2. The likelihood of closing notes on visit days stayed at 70% for never-users and fell slightly for attempted adopters (73% to 70%) and adopters (56% to 54%).
  3. Pajama time among adopters fell from 86.9 to 81.4 minutes per week, while attempted adopters stayed flat and never-users dropped from 69.5 to 62.2.
  4. Among 45 clinicians completing both surveys, high or excessive note-writing time declined from 78% to 60%.

The gain

Among oncology clinicians who completed both surveys, high or excessive note-writing time fell after the AI scribe rollout, and most postrollout respondents said they would recommend it.

The problem

Despite enterprise-wide implementation and training, only about one in five oncology clinicians used the AI scribe, and measured note-closing and after-hours documentation changes were small or inconsistent.

The rundown

The study used a mixed-methods design combining surveys with EHR and utilization data. Clinicians were grouped as adopters (3 or more weeks of use), attempted adopters (1 to 2 weeks), or never-users, and generalized estimating equations tested the effect of adoption on note closing and pajama time.

Use was concentrated in new, video, and in-person visits. Adopters and attempted adopters were more often physicians from medicine and surgery, so uptake was uneven across clinician groups and visit types.

Postrollout surveys from 77 clinicians were largely positive, with 73% willing to recommend the tool. The authors describe the burden outcomes as mixed and call for research on adoption barriers and optimization for oncology documentation workflows.

What this doesn’t fix

Adoption was low and survey samples were small (45 paired respondents, 77 postrollout), and the authors say adoption barriers and tool optimization still need study, so the results may not represent all oncology clinicians.

Sources

  1. Peer-reviewedJCO Oncology Practice2026-10-17

The debate