Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Powered Documentation Systems in Healthcare: A Systematic Review

Authors:
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven documentation systems are positioned to enhance documentation efficiency and reduce documentation burden in the healthcare setting. The administrative burden associated with clinical documentation has been identified as a major contributor to health care professional (HCP) burnout. The current systematic review aims to evaluate the efficiency, quality, and stakeholder opinion regarding the use of AI-driven documentation systems. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. Two independent reviewers applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify eligible studies. Details of AI technology, document type, document quality and stakeholder experience were extracted. The review included 11 studies. All included studies utilised Chat generated pretrained transformer (Chat GPT, Open AI, CA, USA) or an ambient AI technology. Both forms of AI demonstrated significant potential to improve documentation efficiency. Despite efficiency gains, the quality of AI-generated documentation varied across studies. The heterogeneity of methods utilised to assess document quality influenced interpretation of results. HCP opinion was generally positive, users highlighted ease of use and reduced task load as primary benefits. However, HCPs also expressed concerns about the reliability and validity of AI-generated documentation. Chat GPT and ambient AI show promise in enhancing the efficiency and quality of clinical documentation. While the efficiency benefits are clear, the challenges associated with accuracy and consistency need to be addressed. HCP experiences indicate a cautious optimism towards AI integration, however reliability will depend on continued refinement and validation of the technology.
Funding Information
  • Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit: