0
Shares
0
0
0
0

Summary

Ambient AI scribes are increasingly used by healthcare providers to draft clinical notes from doctor-patient conversations. However, a review by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario revealed inaccuracies across tested AI-scribe vendors, highlighting why patients should actively review their own medical records to ensure accuracy.

Ontario’s Auditor General found troubling errors in AI-generated doctor notes during procurement testing. The lesson is not to fear the technology, but to stay involved in your own medical history.

A recent New York Times Magazine article, “How A.I. Might Change the Way Doctors Think,” asks an important question: if artificial intelligence writes a doctor’s note, could it also change how the doctor thinks through a patient’s care?

The article focuses on ambient AI scribes, tools that listen to a doctor-patient conversation and generate a clinical note afterward.

Their appeal is easy to understand. Doctors are overwhelmed by documentation. AI could mean less time typing, less after-hours paperwork and more time looking at, listening to and speaking with patients.

That is a promising development.

But writing a medical note has traditionally been more than administrative work. It is often part of clinical reasoning: sorting out what matters, identifying uncertainty, reconciling conflicting details and explaining why a treatment plan makes sense.

Reviewing a polished AI summary is not necessarily the same as building that story from scratch.

And Ontario’s Auditor General has now given patients a concrete reason to care about that distinction.

What Ontario’s audit found

An AI scribe is software that listens to a conversation between a healthcare provider and patient, then uses artificial intelligence to turn it into a structured clinical note, including symptoms, history, assessment and treatment plan.

In May 2026, the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario reviewed the provincial process used to pre-qualify AI-scribe vendors for healthcare providers.

During procurement testing, each vendor was given the same two simulated doctor-patient recordings. Medical professionals then assessed whether the AI-generated notes accurately and completely reflected those conversations.

All 20 approved vendors showed at least one type of inaccuracy.

Among the findings:

  • 9 of 20 systems (45%) fabricated information or added treatment suggestions that had not been discussed;
  • 12 of 20 systems (60%) recorded a different drug from the one prescribed;
  • 17 of 20 systems (85%) missed key mental-health details in at least one of the test recordings; and
  • 6 of 20 systems (30%) missed those mental-health issues fully or partially, or omitted key details, across both tests.

The examples are sobering. Some notes stated that there were “no masses found” or that a patient had anxiety, even though neither point had been discussed in the recordings.

It is important to be fair about what these findings mean. These were controlled procurement tests, not evidence that these errors occurred in the records of actual Ontario patients. AI scribes may still deliver meaningful benefits, and the Ministry has said the systems require clinician oversight.

But the audit demonstrates why that oversight cannot be treated as a formality.

The time-pressure problem

AI scribes are meant to save doctors time. Yet their safe use depends on doctors taking enough time to review what the system created.

The Auditor General noted that OntarioMD had issued guidance for manual review of AI-generated notes, but the systems did not require users to attest, through a sign-off feature, that they had actually verified the note.

The Auditor General recommended that vendors build a control requiring users to confirm their review before the note is finalized.

That is a sensible safeguard. A fluent note can sound convincing even when it is incomplete or wrong.

Consider the difference between these two statements:

  • “The medication was stopped because it did not work.”
  • “The medication worked, but it was stopped because of side effects.”

That distinction could affect your next treatment decision. If the wrong version is carried into the chart, a future doctor might assume a medication has already failed and never consider it again.

Once an error enters a record, it can travel, into referral letters, hospital notes, specialist consultations and future summaries, until it begins to look like established fact.

Your record is more than a file

Your medical record is the long-term story of your health.

It may contain medication trials, allergies, imaging, pathology reports, specialist opinions, surgeries, diagnoses that were ruled out and the reasoning behind important decisions.

That history becomes especially valuable when a doctor retires, a practice closes, you move or a new specialist takes over your care.

A new doctor may know what medication you are taking today. But your record can answer the questions that matter just as much:

  • What has already been tried?
  • What worked, and what caused side effects?
  • What tests were done?
  • What did the previous specialist conclude?
  • What should not be repeated?

Electronic records have made information easier to store, but they have not created one seamless medical file that follows every patient everywhere. Your family doctor, hospital, specialists and walk-in clinic may all hold different pieces of the picture.

Often, the patient is the only constant.

Patients can be an important safety check

You do not need to become your own doctor or scrutinize every line of every note.

But you do know your own history in a way no clinician or AI system can fully replicate.

You may notice that:

  • a medication is incorrectly listed as current;
  • an allergy is missing;
  • a diagnosis was considered but never confirmed;
  • a report has the wrong date or side of the body;
  • a treatment was stopped for the wrong reason; or
  • an important concern raised during an appointment never made it into the note.

Research on patients reading their clinical notes has found that many do spot mistakes, including mistakes involving diagnoses, medications, allergies and test results.

That is not a criticism of doctors. It is an opportunity to make care safer.

Your doctor brings medical training and judgment. AI may increasingly bring speed and powerful ways to organize information. You bring something neither can replace: firsthand knowledge of your own health over time.

A few smart questions to ask

If your healthcare provider uses an AI scribe, it is reasonable to ask:

  • Will you review the note before it becomes part of my chart?
  • Can I see the visit summary or final note?
  • How can I request a correction if something is inaccurate?
  • Where is the recording or information stored, and who can access it?
  • What happens if I prefer not to have AI record the appointment?

These are not hostile questions. They are sensible questions in a changing healthcare environment.

Participation, not fear

AI may become one of the most helpful tools medicine has ever had. It could ease doctors’ administrative burden, improve access to information and help patients make sense of complex records.

But more technology should not make patients less involved.

The future of healthcare will increasingly involve three participants: doctor, patient and machine. The strongest version of that future is one where physicians remain accountable for clinical judgment, technology is carefully supervised and patients know enough about their own records to recognize when something does not look right.

Doctors will change. Health systems will change. AI will change as well.

Your medical history is the one thing that follows you through all of it.

~ Read more from The Health Insider ~

The information provided on TheHealthInsider.ca is for educational purposes only and does not substitute for professional medical advice. TheHealthInsider.ca advises consulting a medical professional or healthcare provider when seeking medical advice, diagnoses, or treatment. To read about our editorial review process click here.

0 Shares:
Share
Tweet
Share
Share

Elan is the Founder of The Health Insider and Editor-in-Chief as well as President and CEO of RSRS, one of Canada’s largest health records repositories. Having worked extensively with both health practitioners and patients alike over the years, Elan has come to understand the importance of the patient’s proactive and collaborative involvement in their own health management.

— Previous article

1 in 8 Cancers Worldwide Are Caused by Infections: What Canadians Need to Know

Next article —

A Canadian Guide to Hip and Knee Replacement Wait Lists

You May Also Like