AI scribes and drafted records: what to check, and what to tell patients

Emma George, scribes. Half my friends in the NHS say they're a miracle and the other half say they're a lawsuit waiting to happen. Who's right?

George Both, depending on whether the note gets checked. Let me start with what one actually does. It listens to a consultation or a handover, with permission, and drafts the note or the letter.

Emma And the benefit is real?

George Yes. Typing is time away from the patient, and trials have reported documentation time coming down. I'm not going to pretend that isn't valuable. But everything from the last module still applies. It can invent, omit, distort and misattribute, and it reads beautifully while it does.

Emma Is there actual guidance on this, or is everyone making it up?

George There's actual guidance. NHS England published it in April 2025 and updated it in July 2026. It's written for the organisations adopting these products, which is useful for you, because it tells you what to ask of yours.

Emma What should my organisation have done?

George Appointed a Clinical Safety Officer. Identified the risks and kept a safety case and hazard log, which is what the standard called DCB0160 asks of a deploying organisation. Done a data protection impact assessment. Checked whether the product counts as a medical device. And updated its privacy information before any recording started.

Emma That's a lot. Would I know if they hadn't?

George You can ask. Who's our Clinical Safety Officer? Is there a hazard log for this? Where does the recording go? If nobody can answer, that's information. It doesn't mean stop. It means ask your manager or your information governance team before you rely on it.

Emma And what does the guidance ask of me personally?

George Review and approve every output before it's acted on. You keep an ongoing responsibility to review and revise. And it says plainly that NHS organisations can still be liable for claims. So the organisation answers for the tool, you answer for the entry.

Emma I've also heard people argue these aren't medical devices at all.

George The MHRA clarified that on 29 July 2026. In summary, a product that supports diagnosis or treatment, or acts automatically without a clinician reviewing it, is a medical device. One that only transcribes, summarises, drafts letters or suggests codes for a clinician to review falls outside. Read their statement for the exact words, because this is a summary and positions get updated.

Emma So the line is a human reviewing it.

George Exactly. And you're the human. That's the design. Which is why I get nervous when people treat the review as a formality.

Emma Okay, give me the routine. I want something I can do in two minutes.

George Same order every time. Numbers first, doses and frequencies. Then negatives, denied and no and absent. Then sides and sites. Then medicines and allergies. Then who said what. And last, close your eyes and ask what was said that isn't there.

Emma And if I can't verify something?

George Don't sign it. Edit it or remove it. A shorter true note beats a fuller uncertain one.

Emma What do I say to the patient? I feel awkward.

George Keep it ordinary. A tool is going to listen and help me write the note. I'll check it. This is where the recording goes. You can say no. Clause 5.2 asks you to make sure people know how and why their information is used. If they say no, follow local policy and write it yourself.

Emma Last one. I find a mistake two days later. What do I do?

George Correct it through the proper route so the history is kept. Don't delete and rewrite. Report it as a patient safety event. And if it touched their care, be open and candid with them under clause 14.

Emma I think I'd be tempted to quietly fix it.

George I know. But a quiet fix looks like falsification later, and clause 10.3 is clear. An error that's caught and reported means the system works. That's the outcome you want.