Doctors’ Growing Use of AI Scribes Raises Privacy Concerns

In the last year and a half, a new technology has changed how many doctors work. Known as "AI scribes," these digital tools record, transcribe (turn speech into text), and summarize conversations between doctors and their patients. The goal is to help doctors create medical notes faster, which reduces the heavy amount of paperwork they face every day. However, as these tools become more common, the Australian government has raised serious concerns about how they are being used and whether they are safe for patient privacy.

According to The Guardian, the use of AI scribes by doctors in Australia has grown quickly. Data from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) shows that the number of doctors using these tools nearly doubled between August 2024 and November 2025, rising from 22% to 40%. Companies that create these tools say they have been used hundreds of millions of times around the world. While the technology promises to make doctors more productive and lower their stress levels, officials are now looking closely at the risks involved.

One major problem is that these tools often have very little oversight. In February 2026, government documents revealed that the federal health department is worried about how these companies operate. Many of these digital scribes are not classified as "medical devices," which means they do not always have to follow the strict rules that apply to medical equipment. The department noted that some companies claim their products are safe and private, but they often lack transparency. In some cases, these companies may not even realize that their cloud platforms—the online services where data is stored—are sending sensitive patient information outside of Australia. This creates a significant risk for the security of personal health data.

Another issue is the way doctors get permission from their patients. The health department noted that there is a big difference in how medical practices ask for consent. According to the department, for consent to be truly "informed," patients must clearly understand both the benefits and the limitations of the technology being used. However, reports suggest that some patients are not being given a real choice. For example, some doctors have reportedly told patients they must agree to the use of an AI scribe or find a different doctor. This has caused frustration among those who are uncomfortable with their private conversations being recorded by an artificial intelligence.

Dr. Elizabeth Deveny, the chief executive of the Consumer Health Forum, said that the government and the public are asking the same important questions. She noted that while it is good the health department is looking into these issues, the real question is whether current rules are strong enough to protect people in everyday life. She also pointed out that if these tools are meant to save time, the public deserves to know how that time is being used. "If they save clinicians time, the public deserves to know if that time means better care, better access, or if it just means more billable activity," she said.

There are also financial concerns. Some companies advertise that their AI tools can help doctors increase their revenue by 30% without needing to work longer hours or see more patients. The health department warned that this has implications for the Medicare Benefits Scheme—the Australian government’s system for funding healthcare. If doctors are using technology to increase their income without providing more value to the healthcare system, it could lead to higher costs for the government and taxpayers.

Looking ahead, the government’s AI advisory group has noted that these tools share the same problems as other large language models. This means they can sometimes make mistakes in quality or accuracy. Because these tools are now part of the national digital health infrastructure, any error could affect patient safety and the accuracy of medical records. As the health regulator considers the need for new safeguards, the debate continues over how to balance the benefits of modern technology with the need to protect patient rights and ensure that medical care remains fair and transparent for everyone.