In Australia, a visit to a general practitioner’s office today may begin with a crucial question: “Do you consent to the use of an AI scribe for our discussion?” This is the ideal procedure, highlighting an innovative approach to healthcare documentation.
As per a recent online survey conducted by the Royal Australian College of GPs (RACGP), the utilization of AI scribes by physicians in Australia has surged significantly, rising from 22% in August 2024 to 40% in November 2025.
These AI tools, such as the one provided by the Australian company Heidi, play a vital role by recording, transcribing, and summarizing the dialogues between healthcare providers and patients, simplifying medical note-taking.
“We make a concerted effort to inform patients about the use of AI and provide them the option to decline. This transparency is essential,” explains Dr. Max Mollenkopf, a GP in Newcastle. “We are upfront with patients, avoiding any subtlety.”
Heidi has gained popularity among GPs, with the Melbourne-based startup reporting more than 115 million sessions supported worldwide in just 18 months.
While the rise of AI medical scribes promises to ease doctors’ administrative workload, there are valid concerns surrounding consent, privacy, and the accuracy of these technologies.
Doctors interviewed by Guardian Australia emphasized the necessity of obtaining patient consent before employing these AI systems.
However, Dr. Elizabeth Deveny, CEO of the Consumer Health Forum, points out that not all clinics engage in clear discussions regarding these tools. “During a recent visit to my GP, I noticed a poster in the waiting room about an AI scribe. It implied that by reading it, I was providing my consent,” she recounts.
When doctors do initiate a conversation about AI scribes, Deveny notes that it is often phrased as a casual inquiry: “You won’t mind if I use this?” This dynamic can present challenges due to the inherent power imbalance between the patient and the clinician.
For many GPs, AI scribes serve as helpful administrative tools, enhancing the ability to engage with patients during consultations. This allows doctors to concentrate fully on the patient rather than being preoccupied with note-taking.
“They also function as compliance aids,” says Mollenkopf. “The benefit of these scribe tools is their capability to format the consultation precisely, which is crucial for Medicare audits.”
“This feature provides GPs peace of mind, allowing them to demonstrate the work conducted if audited, as the scribe tool captures the entire consultation,” he adds.
Although Mollenkopf was a beta tester for Heidi AI, he was not compensated for this role or for his endorsements, and he continues to pay for his own use of the application. Additionally, he utilizes Heidi’s Comms service, an AI bot that autonomously contacts patients for health updates between appointments.
“You might expect some patients to be upset about it … but that’s actually a minority,” Mollenkopf remarks.
Deveny expresses concerns that relying on AI for note-keeping might hinder doctors’ ability to remember and engage meaningfully with their patients. “Patients feel that when they return to visit their GP, the doctor lacks an emotional connection … because they don’t seem to remember the previous conversation,” she observes.
Dr. Caitlin Curtis, a researcher from the University of Queensland focusing on responsible AI, agrees. “Note-taking isn’t merely an administrative task; it’s integral to our cognitive process,” she explains. “Writing and summarizing helps us process information, reflect, prioritize, and genuinely comprehend the situation at hand. If this fundamental process becomes automated or absent, time may be saved, but important elements could be lost.”
Dr. Janice Tan, deputy chair of the RACGP’s digital health and innovation committee, emphasizes that alleviating some of the administrative pressures on doctors could foster better patient interactions. “Clinicians might regain mental space to engage fully in consultations instead of being partially distracted by paperwork,” she notes. “Burnout is a significant issue in general practice today, and if AI can mitigate some of that stress, it deserves attention.”
Moreover, AI note-takers may not capture nuances such as tone, emotion, and non-verbal cues a patient conveys, particularly during mental health consultations, as Curtis points out.
Currently, these tools are not governed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, as they don’t directly provide diagnoses to patients.
In terms of patient data security, the healthcare sector consistently faces risks. Australia has experienced several incidents related to medical data breaches, including Australian Clinical Labs, Medibank, and Genea.
RACGP president Dr. Michael Wright expressed optimism that AI technologies could enhance collaboration between patients and GPs in determining the best treatment options. Still, he acknowledges privacy and consent remain significant issues.
“Both the GP and potentially the patient must verify that the AI-generated output is accurate,” he emphasizes.
Heidi co-founder and CEO Dr. Tom Kelly assures that patient data is processed within the relevant country and not used for training the AI or shared with third parties. The company employs third-party testing and auditing to ensure data security, he adds.
Kelly insists that the company commits to maintaining high standards for its transcriptions, which the AI model generates, yet physicians should still review the AI-assisted notes.
“Even clinicians can make mistakes—typos or misstatements. However, the errors we [Heidi] produce often stem from unusual misinterpretations that wouldn’t typically occur with human listeners,” he explains.
