A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of an EHR-Integrated Generative AI Chart Summarization Tool for Ambulatory Clinicians
Chin, A. T.; Zhu, N.; Vangala, S.; Woo, H.; Wisk, L. E.; Kingsley, T.; Mafi, J. N.; Lukac, P. J.
Show abstract
BACKGROUND Generative AI (genAI) chart summarization tools embedded in electronic health records (EHRs) are being rapidly deployed across U.S. health systems. Although these tools represent a promising solution to alleviate cognitive burdens, their effects have not been examined in randomized-clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS In this pragmatic RCT at a single academic health system, 284 outpatient clinicians across forty-two specialties were assigned 1:1 to Epic's outpatient chart summarization tool or a usual-care control arm over 90 days, from February 23 to May 23, 2026. The primary outcome was physician task load (PTL) adapted for pre-charting. Prespecified exploratory outcomes included additional validated psychometrics as well as usability, safety, and time-based measures. Descriptive statistics included interaction and usage of the tool. RESULTS Of 74,474 AI chart summaries generated, 14.2% were interacted with by a clinician; the proportion of generated summaries interacted with declined from 21.5% in month 1 to 10.5% in month 3, and the proportion of clinicians using the tool at least once per month declined from 88.7% to 66.2%. The adjusted between-arm difference in PTL at follow-up favored the intervention arm (scale 0-400; -27.4; 95% CI, -49.4 to -5.3; P=0.02). Among the Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI; scale 0-4, lower=better) psychometrics, overall burnout (-0.20; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.01) and work exhaustion (-0.24; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.02) were lower in the intervention arm, with little difference in overall professional fulfillment (+0.04; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.25). Charting time per encounter showed no significant between-arm difference during steady state (-1.2 seconds; 95% CI, -19.0 to 16.6). The net promoter score was -22, indicating that on average, clinicians did not recommend the tool. Among free-text respondents, 57.1% reported at least one concern, most commonly tool limitations or inaccurate information. No adverse patient safety events or near-misses were reported. CONCLUSION An EHR-integrated AI chart summarization tool modestly reduced physician task load and was associated with lower burnout, without time savings and against declining engagement. Sustained usage and oversight of reported inaccuracies remain open challenges.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 93%
- Ambient scribe in general practice: a multi-perspective before-after longitudinal mixed-methods study 92%
- Utilization of Generative AI-drafted Responses for Managing Patient-Provider Communication 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding how the design and implementation of Online Consultations influence primary care outcomes: Systematic review of evidence with recommendations for designers, providers, and researchers 94%
- Distinguishing Admissions Specifically for COVID-19 from Incidental SARS-CoV-2 Admissions: A National Retrospective EHR Study 92%
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials with a Trial-specific Patient Decision Aid (tPDA): A Development and Usability Study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of the Tool for Advancing Practice Performance, a practice-level survey to assess primary care structures and processes 93%
- Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach 93%
- Clinical code sets and the problem of redundancy in code set repositories 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- User Testing of a Diagnostic Decision Support System with Machine-assisted Chart Review to Facilitate Clinical Genomic Diagnosis 92%
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 92%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.