Estimated reading time: 4 minutes · Last updated:
Clinicians at St. Joseph’s Health are using AI to record visits, draft after-visit summaries and assemble treatment plans so they can spend more time talking with patients, as first reported by Spectrum News. The tools named in local interviews include Dax AI for visit capture and a research-focused system called Open Evidence linked to the New England Journal of Medicine. The American Medical Association’s survey shows over 80 percent of physicians report professional AI use, and hospital clinicians say the technology frees attention from note-taking while requiring clinician verification and privacy controls. Published 15 October 2026, 11:21 AM ET; updated 15 October 2026, 11:51 AM ET.
“Normally when you go into the doctor's office, they're like asking questions and typing at the same time, listening and typing and basically multitasking,”
Jill Murphy, patient at St. Joseph’s Health
Key takeaways
- Local deployment: Clinicians at St. Joseph’s Health are using Dax AI to record conversations and generate after-visit summaries and treatment plans.
- Research tool: Dr. Haidy Marzouk uses Open Evidence, described as linked to the New England Journal of Medicine, for research and cross-checking sources.
- Adoption: An American Medical Association survey shows over 80 percent of physicians report professional use of AI and highlighted privacy and validation concerns.
Table of contents
How clinicians use AI to reclaim time with patients
Hospital clinicians describe workflows in which voice-activated software records the clinician‑patient conversation, transcribes it and produces a concise after-visit summary and a draft treatment plan. At St. Joseph’s Health staff named Dax AI as the tool performing visit capture and write-up, which lets clinicians stop typing during the encounter and return their attention to the patient. The practical effect reported in interviews is fewer minutes spent on documentation at the computer and more uninterrupted bedside conversation.
Those staff members say the summaries are drafts that clinicians review and edit before they become part of the medical record. That step preserves clinician responsibility for clinical judgement while shrinking the clerical portion of a typical visit.
Which AI is used and how clinicians verify outputs
Clinicians interviewed named two distinct uses: one tool for visit capture and administrative notes, and another for evidence synthesis. Dr. Haidy Marzouk, an ENT surgeon at St. Joseph’s Health, described using Open Evidence for literature summaries because it restricts retrieval to peer‑reviewed, evidence‑based journals. She said she cross‑verifies AI summaries against the original primary sources before relying on them for clinical decisions.
Dr. Julie Colvin, a physician at St. Joseph’s Health, emphasised that AI is a supplement rather than a substitute. She warned that outputs vary by how questions are framed and that clinicians must validate the AI’s reasoning and citations before acting on recommendations.
Patient experience, limits and privacy concerns
Patients told interviewers that they value the added time and face‑to‑face attention that results when clinicians are freed from real‑time typing. Jill Murphy, a patient at St. Joseph’s Health, contrasted multitasked visits with ones where the clinician is focused: she said longer, uninterrupted conversation matters when patients receive emotionally difficult news and need empathy alongside information.
At the same time the American Medical Association survey cited by hospital staff flagged data privacy, safety and efficacy validation as priorities for clinicians adopting AI. Hospital clinicians therefore balance the productivity gains against the need for secure handling of audio and notes, explicit patient consent where required, and institutional review of any clinical workflows that change because of automation.
| Tool | Primary use | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Dax AI | Records visits, creates after-visit summaries and treatment plans | Used at St. Joseph’s Health to reduce documentation time |
| Open Evidence | Research and evidence synthesis | Described as linked to the New England Journal of Medicine; clinicians cross-verify primary sources |
Where this could head
The case for
- Reduced documentation time could increase direct clinician‑patient contact and boost patient satisfaction when clinicians edit fewer notes at the computer.
- Evidence‑focused tools such as Open Evidence may speed literature reviews and update clinicians on guidelines more quickly, improving research-led decisions.
The case against
- If clinicians rely on unverified outputs, errors from source selection or prompt phrasing could propagate into care plans.
- Privacy and data‑handling gaps for recorded encounters could expose patient data unless hospitals adopt robust consent, storage and access controls.
What to be careful about
- Recorded conversations and generated notes create privacy and data‑security exposure that hospitals must address before wide deployment.
- AI outputs vary with how questions are posed; incorrect prompts can produce misleading summaries needing clinician correction.
- Automating documentation may reduce opportunities for clinicians to notice subtle social or cultural cues unless workflows preserve direct attention.
- Emotional or high‑stakes conversations risk losing essential human support if clinicians defer explanation or empathy to a system-generated summary.
The bottom line
Hospital interviews and the AMA survey together show a practical trade-off: AI tools can cut clerical burden and free clinicians to spend more face time with patients, but those gains depend on clinician oversight, source verification and robust privacy controls. St. Joseph’s Health staff illustrate how visit‑capture systems and research tools serve different needs; both require institutional policies to manage consent, data storage and clinical review. The immediate task for hospitals is to standardise validation steps and audit data flows so productivity gains do not come at the cost of patient safety or trust.
What to watch
- Watch for St. Joseph’s Health to publish any internal evaluation of Dax AI’s impact on visit length and documentation; no date has been set.
- Watch for a public statement or guidance from the American Medical Association updating its 2026 survey findings and recommendations on clinical AI; no date has been set.
Frequently asked questions
Are clinicians actually using AI tools in practice?
Yes. Interviews at St. Joseph’s Health named Dax AI for visit capture and Open Evidence for literature synthesis, and an American Medical Association survey shows over 80 percent of physicians report professional AI use.
Will AI replace doctors?
No. Dr. Julie Colvin at St. Joseph’s Health said AI is a supplement to a clinician’s expertise and that clinicians must validate outputs before acting on them.
How do clinicians check AI outputs?
Clinicians such as Dr. Haidy Marzouk said they cross‑verify AI summaries against the original primary sources and use evidence‑limited tools like Open Evidence to restrict retrieval to peer‑reviewed journals.
Related reading
This article is information, not medical advice. Anyone acting on it should speak to a qualified professional.
