OnCo
ideasIdea

A randomised trial of AI scribes in oncology clinics measuring errors and time

AI tools that write clinic notes are spreading fast in cancer clinics. Test them properly: do they save time, do they make mistakes about drugs and doses, and do patients notice a difference?

Ambient documentation tools built on large language models are being adopted widely without randomised evidence, and oncology notes carry high-stakes details (regimens, doses, trial eligibility, goals of care). The proposal is a multi-centre randomised trial of AI scribes versus usual documentation in oncology clinics, with primary outcomes of clinically significant documentation errors (blinded audit), clinician time and burnout, and patient-reported communication quality, plus a secondary analysis of structured data completeness (mCODE elements captured).

Hypothesis
AI scribes will reduce documentation time and burnout but will introduce a non-trivial rate of clinically significant errors in oncology-specific content unless paired with structured verification, and the trial will quantify both.
Rationale
Early observational reports show time savings and occasional hallucinated content; the trade-off in oncology, where a wrong dose or regimen in the note propagates, must be measured rather than assumed.
What would test it
Randomise 200 oncologists across ten centres for six months; audit 5,000 notes blinded for errors; measure time, burnout and patient experience.
Maturity
early clinical
Who has to act
research
Cost to try
Medium ($1M to $50M)
Years to first evidence
2
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

3top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links