Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR AI

Date Submitted: Mar 19, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: Mar 27, 2025 - May 22, 2025
Date Accepted: Mar 16, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Evaluating Medical Students’ Perceptions of AI-Assisted Clinical Documentation (CarePilot): Cross-Sectional Study

Bindi J, Jamali T, Danze T, Tutera J, Cox J

Evaluating Medical Students’ Perceptions of AI-Assisted Clinical Documentation (CarePilot): Cross-Sectional Study

JMIR AI 2026;5:e74198

DOI: 10.2196/74198

PMID: 42149782

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Evaluating AI-Assisted Clinical Documentation with Medical Student Perceptions of CarePilot in Simulated Encounters: A Cross-sectional Study

  • Jonathan Bindi; 
  • Taylor Jamali; 
  • Talia Danze; 
  • Joseph Tutera; 
  • James Cox

ABSTRACT

Background:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming healthcare by streamlining clinical documentation and enhancing physician workflow. AI-powered systems, such as CarePilot, have the potential to reduce administrative burdens and mitigate physician burnout by automating tasks like transcribing patient encounters and predicting medical coding.

Objective:

This study evaluated the experiences of medical students using the CarePilot system during a simulated clinical encounter, thereby providing insights into its usability and potential impact on clinical documentation practices.

Methods:

In this cross-sectional study conducted at the Burnett School of Medicine at Texas Christian University, 44 third- and fourth-year medical students participated in a standardized simulation featuring a patient with a chief complaint of headache. Participants were tasked with recording patient history, physical examination findings, clinical reasoning, and management decisions using CarePilot, which was configured to emulate a typical electronic health record workflow. Following the encounter, each participant completed a 27-question electronic survey based on a Likert scale, designed to assess aspects such as ease of use, documentation efficiency, and overall system functionality.

Results:

Survey results revealed that over 75% of respondents rated key features—including ease of use, learnability, interface likability, and documentation organization—positively. However, approximately 30% of participants expressed neutral or dissatisfied opinions regarding overall satisfaction, citing workflow disturbances and limitations in functionalities that could impact patient interaction time.

Conclusions:

These findings suggest that while CarePilot is generally effective and user-friendly, targeted refinements in workflow integration and feature set are needed to further optimize its clinical application and support improved physician-patient engagement.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Bindi J, Jamali T, Danze T, Tutera J, Cox J

Evaluating Medical Students’ Perceptions of AI-Assisted Clinical Documentation (CarePilot): Cross-Sectional Study

JMIR AI 2026;5:e74198

DOI: 10.2196/74198

PMID: 42149782

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.