Cureus · 2025
Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Documentation: A Cross-Sectional Study of Healthcare Professionals.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mahajan Uday, Parpia Salman Shoukat Ali, Gupta Ria, Spurrier Edward, Akhtar Meraj, Gupta Vibhore
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used across healthcare, yet its role in everyday medical documentation remains uncertain. This study explored the current use, perceptions, and readiness for AI integration among healthcare professionals within a tertiary trauma unit in the United Kingdom.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between August and September 2025 using Microsoft Forms (Redmond, USA). The questionnaire assessed AI familiarity, current and intended use, perceived safety and ethics, and awareness of institutional policies. Quantitative and qualitative responses were analysed descriptively.
RESULTS: Sixty-three healthcare professionals completed the survey, including consultants (n = 3, 5%), registrars (n = 12, 19%), core trainees (n = 16, 25%), foundation doctors (n = 6, 10%), and allied health professionals (n = 24, 38%). Familiarity with AI tools was highest among registrars and core trainees and lowest among consultants. While only 52% (n = 33) had used AI for clinical or administrative work, 70% (n = 44) indicated they would do so if officially approved. Participants perceived AI as potentially useful but raised concerns about data security (n = 47, 75%), clinical inaccuracy (n = 40, 63%), and accountability (n = 38, 60%). Institutional guidance was rare (n = 7, 11%), though most respondents supported formal training (n = 43, 68%) and regulation (n = 54, 86%).
CONCLUSION: Clinicians across all grades recognise AI's potential to improve documentation efficiency but remain cautious about safety and governance. Adoption is currently driven by junior and mid-career clinicians, highlighting the need for structured education, clear policies, and responsible oversight to support safe and ethical AI integration into clinical workflows.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between August and September 2025 using Microsoft Forms (Redmond, USA). The questionnaire assessed AI familiarity, current and intended use, perceived safety and ethics, and awareness of institutional policies. Quantitative and qualitative responses were analysed descriptively.
RESULTS: Sixty-three healthcare professionals completed the survey, including consultants (n = 3, 5%), registrars (n = 12, 19%), core trainees (n = 16, 25%), foundation doctors (n = 6, 10%), and allied health professionals (n = 24, 38%). Familiarity with AI tools was highest among registrars and core trainees and lowest among consultants. While only 52% (n = 33) had used AI for clinical or administrative work, 70% (n = 44) indicated they would do so if officially approved. Participants perceived AI as potentially useful but raised concerns about data security (n = 47, 75%), clinical inaccuracy (n = 40, 63%), and accountability (n = 38, 60%). Institutional guidance was rare (n = 7, 11%), though most respondents supported formal training (n = 43, 68%) and regulation (n = 54, 86%).
CONCLUSION: Clinicians across all grades recognise AI's potential to improve documentation efficiency but remain cautious about safety and governance. Adoption is currently driven by junior and mid-career clinicians, highlighting the need for structured education, clear policies, and responsible oversight to support safe and ethical AI integration into clinical workflows.