Assessment of Non-Institutional AI Tool Usage Among Clinicians

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11990v1
• Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2026 22:47:34 GMT
• Title: Assessment of Non-Institutional AI Tool Usage Among Clinicians
• Abstract summary: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly accessible and have the potential to improve efficiency across clinical.<n>However, clinicians may also use non-institutional AI tools that are not provided, managed, or governed by their healthcare institutions.<n>We conducted a survey of clinicians recruited from the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Tucson and Banner University Medical Center-Tucson.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly accessible and have the potential to improve efficiency across clinical workflows. However, clinicians may also use non-institutional AI tools that are not provided, managed, or governed by their healthcare institutions, creating potential concerns related to privacy, security, accuracy, and clinician-AI interaction. Little is known about how clinicians currently use these tools for work-related tasks. We conducted a descriptive survey of clinicians recruited from the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Tucson and Banner University Medical Center-Tucson between May 20 and June 26, 2026. Participants reported their use of AI tool categories and the frequency with which they used AI for specific tasks across five workload categories: administrative work, clinical work, research, studying/continued education, and teaching. Forty-four respondents completed the survey. Forty-three respondents reported using AI for at least one work-related task during the preceding 6 months. Conversational AI and clinical decision support/diagnostic AI were the most used tool categories, each reported by 28 respondents. Administrative and clinical tasks demonstrated the most frequent use. AI was also used for higher-risk activities, including diagnostic assistance and clinical decision support. Non-institutional AI use was common among surveyed clinicians and extended across a broad range of work-related activities, including tasks with potential implications for clinical reasoning and patient care. Further research is needed to characterize how clinicians use these tools, how they evaluate AI-generated outputs, and how AI can be safely and effectively integrated into clinical workflows.

Related papers

• How Indian Dermatologists are Utilizing Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Practice and Workflow Management: A Nationwide Survey with a Special Focus on atopic dermatitis [0.7765113779157456]
  We surveyed Indian dermatologists to map routine clinical challenges, with a focus on atopic dermatitis (AD)<n>We assessed clinical challenges, AD workflow barriers, AI use, adoption barriers, and ethical concerns.<n>Current AI use was reported by 49.9%, most often involving general large language models for literature synthesis, documentation, and academic tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T10:18:55Z)
• Reverse Physician-AI Relationship: Full-process Clinical Diagnosis Driven by a Large Language Model [71.40113970879219]
  We propose a paradigm shift that reverses the relationship between physicians and AI.<n>We present DxDirector-7B, an LLM endowed with advanced deep thinking capabilities, enabling it to drive the full-process diagnosis with minimal physician involvement.<n>In evaluations across rare, complex, and real-world cases under full-process diagnosis setting, DxDirector-7B not only achieves significant superior diagnostic accuracy but also substantially reduces physician workload.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T09:51:20Z)
• AI-based Clinical Decision Support for Primary Care: A Real-World Study [1.2764851761863103]
  We evaluate the impact of large language model-based clinical decision support in live care.<n>We studied AI Consult, a tool that serves as a safety net for clinicians by identifying potential documentation and clinical decision-making errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T18:37:33Z)
• Designing AI Tools for Clinical Care Teams to Support Serious Illness Conversations with Older Adults in the Emergency Department [53.52248484568777]
  The work contributes empirical understanding of ED-based serious illness conversations and provides design considerations for AI in high-stakes clinical environments.<n>We conducted interviews with two domain experts and nine ED clinical care team members.<n>We characterized a four-phase serious illness conversation workflow (identification, preparation, conduction, documentation) and identified key needs and challenges at each stage.<n>We present design guidelines for AI tools supporting SIC that fit within existing clinical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T21:15:57Z)
• Over-Relying on Reliance: Towards Realistic Evaluations of AI-Based Clinical Decision Support [12.247046469627554]
  We advocate for moving beyond evaluation metrics like Trust, Reliance, Acceptance, and Performance on the AI's task.<n>We call on the community to prioritize ecologically valid, domain-appropriate study setups that measure the emergent forms of value that AI can bring to healthcare professionals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T03:28:56Z)
• Medchain: Bridging the Gap Between LLM Agents and Clinical Practice with Interactive Sequence [68.05876437208505]
  We present MedChain, a dataset of 12,163 clinical cases that covers five key stages of clinical workflow.<n>We also propose MedChain-Agent, an AI system that integrates a feedback mechanism and a MCase-RAG module to learn from previous cases and adapt its responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T15:25:02Z)
• Towards Next-Generation Medical Agent: How o1 is Reshaping Decision-Making in Medical Scenarios [46.729092855387165]
  We study the choice of the backbone LLM for medical AI agents, which is the foundation for the agent's overall reasoning and action generation.<n>Our findings demonstrate o1's ability to enhance diagnostic accuracy and consistency, paving the way for smarter, more responsive AI tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T18:19:53Z)
• Clinicians' Voice: Fundamental Considerations for XAI in Healthcare [0.0]
  We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians to discuss their thoughts, hopes, and concerns.<n> Clinicians from our sample generally think positively about developing AI-based tools for clinical practice.<n>They have concerns about how these will fit into their workflow and how it will impact clinician-patient relations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T16:47:06Z)
• TrialBench: Multi-Modal Artificial Intelligence-Ready Clinical Trial Datasets [54.98321887435557]
  This paper presents a suite of 23 meticulously curated AI-ready datasets covering multi-modal input features and 8 crucial prediction challenges in clinical trial design.<n>We provide basic validation methods for each task to ensure the datasets' usability and reliability.<n>We anticipate that the availability of such open-access datasets will catalyze the development of advanced AI approaches for clinical trial design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T09:13:10Z)
• Large Language Models in the Clinic: A Comprehensive Benchmark [63.21278434331952]
  We build a benchmark ClinicBench to better understand large language models (LLMs) in the clinic. We first collect eleven existing datasets covering diverse clinical language generation, understanding, and reasoning tasks. We then construct six novel datasets and clinical tasks that are complex but common in real-world practice. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two LLMs under both zero-shot and few-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T15:51:06Z)
• AI Hospital: Benchmarking Large Language Models in a Multi-agent Medical Interaction Simulator [69.51568871044454]
  We introduce textbfAI Hospital, a framework simulating dynamic medical interactions between emphDoctor as player and NPCs. This setup allows for realistic assessments of LLMs in clinical scenarios. We develop the Multi-View Medical Evaluation benchmark, utilizing high-quality Chinese medical records and NPCs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T06:46:48Z)
• Benchmark datasets driving artificial intelligence development fail to capture the needs of medical professionals [4.799783526620609]
  We released a catalogue of datasets and benchmarks pertaining to the broad domain of clinical and biomedical natural language processing (NLP) A total of 450 NLP datasets were manually systematized and annotated with rich metadata. Our analysis indicates that AI benchmarks of direct clinical relevance are scarce and fail to cover most work activities that clinicians want to see addressed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-18T15:05:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.