Medical Scribes: Symptom or Cause of Impeded Evolution of a Transformative Artificial Intelligence in the Electronic Health Record?

Abstract

Studies have quantified various specific benefits related to the use of medical scribes, finding physician workflow and productivity improvements, with some demonstrating marginal value or detrimental impact. However, this evidence base misses a critical underlying issue with the expanding number of physicians using medical scribes routinely. There are an estimated 28,000-33,000 peer reviewed biomedical journals worldwide, currently publishing an estimated 1.8-2 million scientific articles every year. Over a typical physician's career from the 11-13 years of undergraduate through medical school and specialty/residency training as well as 34-36 practice/care delivery years beyond (to age 65), this yields 84-94+ million peer reviewed journal articles that are published in the global medical literature and to be potentially consumed/ considered over a roughly 47-year career. Clinical trial results in various stages of peer review, with 409,000 clinical trials registered in 2022, augment this massive volume of new clinical and bioscience information that clinicians might utilize to advance their care delivery by over 19 million bioscientific reports over a lifetime of training and care delivery. Inclusive of clinical trial reports and peer reviewed journal articles, a physician might derive clinical care value from an expanding career-long evidence base of 103-113+ million scientific communications. Even if only 0.1 percent of the global output of biomedical science has clinical relevance to a highly specialized physician, the narrowed career-long total remains a staggering 103,000 journal publications and clinical trial reports. For physicians with a more general and diverse clinical focus such as family medicine, emergency medicine physicians, and hospitalists, if 1 percent of newly published evidence-based literature is pertinent, the total career-long estimate is over 1 million journal articles and clinical trials to be reviewed and clinically integrated. As a result, a challenging issue created by the increasing role of medical scribes is not just evaluating their value (or lack thereof) for practicing physicians in their workflows and productivity. Rather it concerns the impact that medical scribes may be having by decoupling physicians from the iterative technological and cognitive progression of the electronic health record (EHR) and its evolving artificial intelligence (AI), which can facilitate the integration of the year-over-year proliferation of clinically pertinent new scientific evidence into a physician's practice of medicine. This commentary addresses the challenge to the evolution of the AI of the EHR posed by physicians' increasing use of and reliance upon medical scribes, and highlights how medical scribes may also, inadvertently, isolate and insulate physicians from their essential role in continuous refinement and advancement of EHR AI. Consideration is given to the broader challenge of inadequate focus and resources needed across sectors to drive the evolution of AI in the EHR, and associated health informatics research, as a US national priority.