AI Scribe Adoption Surges Among Australian General Practitioners
In a significant shift within Australian healthcare, the use of artificial intelligence scribes by general practitioners has nearly doubled in just over a year. According to an online poll conducted by the Royal Australian College of GPs, adoption rates jumped from 22% in August 2024 to 40% by November 2025. These AI tools, such as those offered by Melbourne-based startup Heidi, are designed to record, transcribe, and summarise doctor-patient conversations for medical records, aiming to alleviate administrative burdens.
Consent Practices Under Scrutiny
Despite the rapid uptake, concerns are mounting over whether patients are adequately informed and consenting to the use of these technologies. Dr Elizabeth Deveny, CEO of the Consumer Health Forum, highlights that not all medical practices are engaging in explicit discussions with patients. "I went to my GP recently and in the waiting room there was one poster for an AI scribe," she recounts. "It basically said: 'By reading this, you understand that your consent is being given.'" She notes that when conversations do occur, they are often framed passively, such as "you don't mind if I use this?", which may exploit the power imbalance between clinicians and consumers.
Dr Max Mollenkopf, a GP in Newcastle who uses Heidi, emphasises the importance of transparency. "We make a big effort to let patients know we are using AI, and give them the option to opt out. That's a really key bit," he states. "Just telling patients what's going on, not trying to be subtle about it." Heidi reports supporting over 115 million sessions globally in 18 months, underscoring its growing role in general practice.
Balancing Benefits and Risks in Patient Care
Proponents argue that AI scribes can enhance the doctor-patient relationship by allowing GPs to focus more on direct interaction rather than note-taking. Dr Janice Tan, deputy chair of digital health and innovation at the RACGP, suggests that reducing administrative tasks could help combat burnout and improve clinical presence. "Clinicians might actually have room to think again – to be present in a consultation rather than half-distracted by paperwork," she explains.
However, critics warn that outsourcing note-keeping to AI may undermine care quality. Dr Caitlin Curtis, a University of Queensland researcher in responsible AI, points out that manual note-taking is integral to cognitive processing. "Note-taking isn't just administrative – when we write and summarise things, it's part of how we think," she says. "It helps us process information, reflect, prioritise, and really understand what's going on. If that process is automated or removed, it may save time – but it raises the question of what else might be lost."
Dr Deveny adds that patients often report feeling disconnected when GPs rely on AI, as it can impair recall of previous consultations. Furthermore, AI tools currently lack the ability to capture nonverbal cues like tone and emotion, which are crucial in fields such as mental health.
Privacy, Accuracy, and Regulatory Gaps
The rise of AI scribes also brings to light issues of data security and accuracy. Australia has experienced several high-profile medical data breaches, including incidents involving Australian Clinical Labs, Medibank, and Genea. Dr Tom Kelly, co-founder and CEO of Heidi, assures that patient data is processed locally and not used for AI training or sold. "The company uses third-party testing and auditing to keep the data secure," he asserts, though he acknowledges that errors can occur, often in unusual ways compared to human mistakes.
Dr Michael Wright, RACGP president, stresses the need for vigilance. "The GP – and potentially the patient, too – needs to confirm that any AI output is correct," he advises. Currently, these tools are exempt from Therapeutic Goods Administration regulations since they do not diagnose patients directly, leaving a regulatory gap that experts say requires attention.
As AI continues to integrate into Australian healthcare, the debate centres on whether the convenience of technological aids outweighs the risks to patient consent, privacy, and the fundamental human elements of medical care.
