LoginGet started

Healthcare • Clinical Documentation

Specialty‑tuned AI Scribe for Clinician‑Editable Notes

Generate concise HPI, ROS, focused exam, assessment with coding candidates, and clear patient‑facing plans from encounter audio, messages, and typed notes. Works with primary care and specialty workflows — cardiology, psychiatry, ED, OB‑GYN, pediatrics and more.

See plans & pricingExplore industry solutions

Specialty templates

Cardiology, Psychiatry, ED, OB‑GYN, Primary Care, Pediatrics

Prebuilt templates tuned to typical visit types and documentation structure

Intake sources

Audio, secure messages, referral letters, EHR text, lab/reports

Accepts transcripts and structured clinical feeds for complete context

Output formats

FHIR‑ready structures, plain text, EHR‑ready blocks

Export drafts for coding review, quality, or direct EHR import

Clinical burden

Why specialty‑aware AI scribing matters

Clinicians spend substantial time finishing notes after patient encounters. Inconsistent structure, missing clinical context, and transcription errors prolong chart closure, delay billing, and increase clinician burnout. A specialty‑tuned scribe produces focused, actionable drafts that match the documentation expectations for each specialty, reducing rework and making notes easier to review and sign.

  • Creates concise HPI (3–5 sentences) and structured ROS, exam, and assessment
  • Reduces variability across providers with customizable templates and macros
  • Provides audit trails and edit history to support compliance reviews

Workflow overview

How it works — intake, draft, clinician approval

The scribe ingests encounter context (audio or transcript, patient demographics, problem list), applies a specialty template, and generates a draft note. Clinicians review suggested edits in a lightweight editor that highlights subjective vs objective statements, flags ambiguities for clarification, and stores an editable audit trail before final sign‑off.

  • Multi‑source intake: telemedicine audio (MP3/WAV transcripts), secure messages, consult letters, EHR text and structured feeds
  • Drafts are annotated with clarifications and redaction suggestions for PHI not intended for analytics
  • Finalized notes can be exported in EHR‑ready text or structured FHIR‑compatible bundles

Built for specialties

Specialty templates & prompt clusters

Prebuilt, specialty‑aware templates produce the right note structure and phrasing for common visit types. Each template pairs with tested prompt clusters so your scribes and clinicians get consistent, auditable drafts.

Encounter summary (single‑visit)

Generates HPI, ROS bullets, focused exam, assessment with ICD‑10 candidates and a clear plan.

  • Prompt example: "You are a clinical scribe. Given: [Specialty], [Visit type], [Age/sex], [Chief complaint], [Provider transcript]. Produce HPI, ROS, exam, assessment + ICD‑10 candidate codes (with reasoning), and plan with follow‑up."

SOAP note from audio transcript

Converts speech transcripts into SOAP format and flags ambiguous statements.

  • Prompt example: "Convert this transcript into a SOAP note. Identify subjective vs objective statements and mark clarifications where needed."

ED discharge & patient instructions

Creates plain‑language discharge instructions with red‑flag symptoms and return precautions.

  • Prompt example: "Create patient‑facing discharge instructions at a 6th–8th grade level including red flags, medication changes, and follow‑up timeframe."

EHR‑ready exports

Outputs & integrations

Notes are produced in clinician‑editable plain text and as structured, exportable formats suitable for downstream coding, quality review, or EHR import. The system emphasizes clear mapping of note elements that support coding and quality metrics.

  • FHIR‑ready note structures and plain text blocks for copy/paste or API transfer
  • Coding‑ready annotations showing which elements support CPT/ICD considerations
  • Batch export options for bulk draft generation and CSV outputs for QA workflows

Compliance & control

Security, PHI handling & auditability

Designed for clinical environments: intake and storage workflows include configurable redaction, role‑based access, and an immutable edit history so compliance and privacy officers can review who changed what and when.

  • Configurable redaction and 'clarify' flags before notes are used for analytics
  • Granular access controls and editable audit trail for sign‑off and reviews
  • Clinician remains responsible for final content and signature; the system documents the review path

Implementation

Deploy & adopt — recommended rollout

Introduce AI scribing with a staged approach that preserves clinician control and minimizes disruption. Start with non‑critical visits, collect feedback, expand templates, and integrate with EHR export once clinicians are comfortable signing drafts.

  • Pilot: enable for specific clinics or visit types with clinician reviewers
  • Customize templates and macros for recurring visit types and specialty phrasing
  • Train clinicians on review workflows, clarify expectations for sign‑off, and enable audit checks

Ready‑to‑run prompts

Practical prompt examples you can use

Use these prompt clusters with your transcript or message data to generate structured drafts. Replace bracketed placeholders with visit details.

  • Encounter summary (single‑visit): "You are a clinical scribe. Given visit context: [Specialty], [Visit type: new/follow‑up], [Age/sex], [Chief complaint], [Provider transcript]. Produce a concise HPI (3–5 sentences), ROS bullets, focused exam, assessment with ICD‑10 candidate codes (list reasoning), and a clear plan with follow‑up steps and patient instructions."
  • Medication reconciliation: "Compare provider med list to patient‑reported meds and flag discrepancies with suggested reconciliation language for the chart and patient message."
  • Quality assurance: "Review the generated note and list potential clinical red flags, missing exams, or documentation gaps the clinician should address before signing."

FAQ

How does the AI handle PHI and HIPAA requirements?

PHI handling is configurable: intake pipelines can redact or flag sensitive fields before analytics, and access is controlled by role‑based permissions. The platform records an editable audit trail for each draft so privacy officers can review data access and edits. Local policy and legal counsel should confirm your deployment meets applicable HIPAA obligations.

What steps should clinicians take to review and sign AI‑generated notes?

Clinicians should review the draft, resolve any 'clarify' flags, confirm clinical findings and coding suggestions, and edit language to reflect their assessment. The system preserves edit history and timestamps; clinicians remain responsible for final content and signature.

Can the scribe handle telemedicine audio and what transcription quality is required?

Yes — the scribe accepts audio files and transcripts (MP3/WAV or text). Higher‑quality transcripts reduce clarification flags; however, the platform is designed to flag ambiguous phrases for clinician review when audio or transcription quality is limited.

How do I train or customize templates for my specialty or practice?

Templates and macros are customizable: start from a specialty base (e.g., cardiology, psychiatry) and adjust phrasing, required fields, or macros for recurring visit types. During rollout, iterate templates based on clinician feedback to align with local documentation standards.

What audit trail and version history are produced for edits and sign‑offs?

Every draft stores an audit record of source inputs, generated content, user edits, timestamps and reviewer notes. This edit history supports internal quality review and compliance processes without altering the original intake artifacts.

How do I export drafts to my EHR and what formats are supported?

Drafts can be exported as plain text blocks for copy/paste, as CSV for batch workflows, or as structured, FHIR‑compatible data tailored for downstream ingestion. Integration approach depends on your EHR capabilities — work with your EHR admin to map export formats.

How accurate are diagnoses and coding suggestions, and who is responsible for final coding decisions?

The system proposes ICD‑10 candidates and highlights which note elements support coding levels, but it does not replace clinician judgment or official coding review. Final diagnostic and coding decisions remain the responsibility of the treating clinician and coding team.

How does the system flag clinical uncertainty or missing information?

Generated drafts annotate ambiguous statements with 'clarify' markers and list missing data points (e.g., vitals, labs) needed for a complete assessment. QA prompts can produce a gap analysis for the clinician to address before signing.

Can the platform redact or separate sensitive content before analytics or review?

Yes. Redaction controls allow you to identify and remove or mask sensitive PHI before notes are used for analytics, model tuning, or non‑clinical review. Policies and workflows should be defined during implementation.

What are recommended workflows to introduce AI scribing without increasing medico‑legal risk?

Start with a supervised pilot, keep clinicians in the review loop, document review and sign‑off steps in the audit trail, and consult legal/compliance teams to update policies. Emphasize that AI generates drafts to expedite charting — clinicians retain ultimate responsibility for content.

Related pages