Benefits
- Benefit
-
15.9% less time in notes and 8.5% less time in the EHR
Awaiting review
- Outcome identifiers
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Category
-
Reduced Task Time
Awaiting review
- Status
-
Reported benefit
Awaiting review
- Beneficiary groups
-
Organizations.
Awaiting review
- Beneficiaries
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Reach
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Distribution and access
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Duration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Expected?
-
Yes
Awaiting review
- Costs and harms
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
AI system
- System
-
Abridge AI scribe
Awaiting review
- Model
-
This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Release
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Provider
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Role
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Configuration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Inputs and outputs
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Autonomy
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Workflow
-
Clinicians volunteered and completed a one-hour training session led by Abridge support staff. Clinicians recorded visits on personal devices and edited drafts before filing them.
Awaiting review
- Human oversight
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Relation to AI
-
The study compares scribe users with propensity-weighted nonusers and also compares users with their own baseline. The comparison is observational, and users chose to join the pilot.
Awaiting review
- AI contribution
-
The study compares scribe users with propensity-weighted nonusers and also compares users with their own baseline. The comparison is observational, and users chose to join the pilot.
Awaiting review
Measurement
- Studies
-
Controlled observational. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Studies
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Study design
-
Controlled observational. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Study design
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Measurement
-
EHR audit-log time per appointment. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measurement
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Setting and sample
-
125 scribe users and 478 nonusers, University of Chicago ambulatory clinics. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Setting and sample
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Measures
-
Mean EHR time and mean time in notes per appointment. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measures
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Comparison
-
Propensity-weighted nonusers. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Comparison
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Results
-
-8.5% EHR time (95% CI -12.8% to -3.9%); -15.9% note time (95% CI -21.2% to -10.4%). [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Results
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Additional value from AI
-
About 1.8 minutes less in notes per appointment. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Additional value from AI
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Limitations
-
Voluntary users, one site, three months, no change in after-hours time. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Limitations
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
Money
- Kind of value
-
The kind of monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Amount
-
The monetary value is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Currency and prices
-
The currency and price basis are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Period and unit
-
The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Realization
-
Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Recipients and payers
-
The recipients and payers are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Gross or net
-
Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Included costs
-
The costs included in the estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Comparison
-
The financial comparison is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Method
-
The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Return and payback
-
The return on investment or payback period is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
People and places
- Participants
-
Developer: Abridge AI. Operator: University of Chicago Medicine.
Awaiting review
- Jurisdictions
-
Benefit: University of Chicago Medicine ambulatory clinics, Chicago, Illinois,
United States. Developer: United States. Operator: United States.Awaiting review
- Ownership and control
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Dependencies
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Cross-border connections
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Geopolitical implications
-
The geopolitical implications are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Follow-up
- Conditions for replication
-
Clinicians use the scribe for routine visits and review its drafts.
Awaiting review
- Replication attempts
-
1 follow-up entry. Benefit recurred: 1.
Awaiting review
- Later findings
-
The cited source covers the three-month pilot only.
Awaiting review
- Availability
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Institutional decision
-
A relevant institutional decision has not been established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Grounds
-
The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Action and result
-
The result of an institutional decision is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Success criterion
-
The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Evidence
- Source numbers
-
AIBD-0609-source-0001–0003
Awaiting review
- Citations
-
Numbered references below.
Awaiting review
- Language
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Source relationships
-
Independent, Operator
Awaiting review
- Original evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Access and versions
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Supported findings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence links
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence strength
-
Independently studied. Sources: one independent peer-reviewed study and the deployer's peer-reviewed study. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court. [1] [2]
- Missing evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
Grades
- Assessed benefits
-
Organizations.
Awaiting review
- Depth
-
Organizations: 1.
Awaiting review
- Reasons
-
Organizations: Scribe users spent 15.9% less time in notes and 8.5% less time in the EHR per appointment.
Awaiting review
- Observed or intended
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Rubric
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Assessor and date
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Alternative assessments
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Fill
-
Independently studied
Awaiting review
Entry details
- Kind
-
The case describes an evaluation or a study. Retrospective cohort study with pre-post and propensity-weighted comparisons. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Kind
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Related entries
-
Both records concern the Abridge ambient AI scribe used by a health system, and in this incident a health system faces a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that it used the scribe to record patient visits without consent and that the scribe workflow placed false consent statements in its medical notes.
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Related entries
Compared with the incidents in the AI Incident Database snapshot of 26 October 2026; a second reading confirmed that the incident concerns the same kind of system and stakeholder.
Sources: incidentdatabase.ai
- Field
-
Healthcare.
Awaiting review
- Purpose
-
Abridge is built to draft visit notes from recorded conversations so that clinicians spend less time documenting. The time saving is that purpose.
Awaiting review
- Dates
-
Observed: 1 July 2024. Updated: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
- Stage
-
The system was used in a pilot. A voluntary three-month pilot from 1 July to 30 September 2024. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Stage
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Version
-
SHA-256: f6831a5dfbcb…
Awaiting review: supporting details for Version
SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.
References
- Other identifiers
-
AI Incident Database: 1754.
Awaiting review
- Category mappings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Citable summary
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Revisions
-
2 revisions. Latest: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
Sources
-
Peer-reviewed study Independent author
Wolfe J, Welsh SM. Ambient Documentation Systems in Emergency Medicine: A Scoping Review of Clinical Precision, Patient Experience, Throughput, and Quality. Cureus 2026;18(4):e106643. doi:10.7759/cureus.106643. Review by emergency physicians at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University; the authors declare no financial support and no financial relationships.
Pearlman et al. studied 125 AI scribe users and 478 controls and found an 8.5% reduction in mean EHR time per appointment and a 15.9% reduction in note time per appointment
-
Peer-reviewed study Deployer
Pearlman K, Wan W, Shah S, Laiteerapong N. Use of an AI Scribe and Electronic Health Record Efficiency. JAMA Network Open 2025;8(10):e2537000. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.37000. Written by University of Chicago researchers at the deploying health system.
In the weighted generalized linear regression, AI scribe use was associated with an 8.5% (95% CI, -12.8% to -3.9%; P < .001) lower mean EHR time (ie, 2.4 minutes) and a 15.9% (95% CI -21.2% to -10.4%; P < .001) lower mean time in notes (ie, 1.8 minutes) with no significant differences in other outcomes.
In July 2024, the University of Chicago deployed an AI scribe developed by Abridge AI Inc.