An Evaluation of AI‐Generated Clinical Notes in the OpenNotes Era: A Thematic Analysis of Clinician Discourse

BACKGROUND: The integration of ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes into the OpenNotes environment presents a profound governance crisis in healthcare. While patient access to medical records was designed as a transparency reform, the introduction of machine-generated text introduces novel vulnerabilities regarding record integrity, liability, and patients' trust. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates how clinicians discursively negotiate the systemic risks and accountability challenges of patient-facing, AI-assisted documentation. METHODS: Employing a netnographically informed qualitative design, the research conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of 484 relevant comments across 120 threads from eight clinician-oriented subreddits spanning October 2020 to February 2026. RESULTS: The analysis revealed five distinct governance challenges. First, an accountability vacuum exists where the mandatory clinician signature functions merely as a legal shock absorber for institutional AI liability. Second, clinicians frame AI hallucinations as a mathematically inevitable epistemic risk rather than a correctable technical bug. Third, a "dual-audience" problem emerges, as algorithmic optimization compromises both the individual clinical voice needed for peer communication and the empathetic clarity required for patient readers. Fourth, existing privacy frameworks are structurally inadequate to manage commercial data extraction during patient encounters. Finally, institutional productivity demands and AI-driven over-documentation severely threaten the fiscal credibility of the medical record through inadvertent upcoding. CONCLUSIONS: The prevailing regulatory assumption-that a physician's digital signature combined with passive patient visibility guarantees documentation accountability-is a fragile fiction. To protect clinical truth, health systems must transition from models of passive disclosure toward contingent transparency. This requires establishing authoritative, enforceable mechanisms for provenance tracking, error contestation, and vendor accountability.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Published
2026-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70516
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An Evaluation of AI‐Generated Clinical Notes in the OpenNotes Era: A Thematic Analysis of Clinician Discourse

Olufisayo Olakotan, Samuel Oluwatobi Atiku
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

An Evaluation of AI‐Generated Clinical Notes in the OpenNotes Era: A Thematic Analysis of Clinician Discourse

Olufisayo Olakotan, Samuel Oluwatobi Atiku
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The integration of ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes into the OpenNotes environment presents a profound governance crisis in healthcare. While patient access to medical records was designed as a transparency reform, the introduction of machine-generated text introduces novel vulnerabilities regarding record integrity, liability, and patients' trust. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates how clinicians discursively negotiate the systemic risks and accountability challenges of patient-facing, AI-assisted documentation. METHODS: Employing a netnographically informed qualitative design, the research conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of 484 relevant comments across 120 threads from eight clinician-oriented subreddits spanning October 2020 to February 2026. RESULTS: The analysis revealed five distinct governance challenges. First, an accountability vacuum exists where the mandatory clinician signature functions merely as a legal shock absorber for institutional AI liability. Second, clinicians frame AI hallucinations as a mathematically inevitable epistemic risk rather than a correctable technical bug. Third, a "dual-audience" problem emerges, as algorithmic optimization compromises both the individual clinical voice needed for peer communication and the empathetic clarity required for patient readers. Fourth, existing privacy frameworks are structurally inadequate to manage commercial data extraction during patient encounters. Finally, institutional productivity demands and AI-driven over-documentation severely threaten the fiscal credibility of the medical record through inadvertent upcoding. CONCLUSIONS: The prevailing regulatory assumption-that a physician's digital signature combined with passive patient visibility guarantees documentation accountability-is a fragile fiction. To protect clinical truth, health systems must transition from models of passive disclosure toward contingent transparency. This requires establishing authoritative, enforceable mechanisms for provenance tracking, error contestation, and vendor accountability.

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeVol. 32(5)
University of Wolverhampton (GB), Aston University (GB), University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.