The ambient AI scribe transcribing Rebecca Green's first appointment with a urologist recorded that she micro-dosed psychedelic mushrooms and that this could be the reason for earlier bleeding around her kidneys. The claim, which had no basis in her history, was carried into the post-operative letter her specialist sent to her GP. Ms Green says she has never taken mushrooms and only discovered the entry by chance after kidney stone surgery, when she read the letter; she was on workers' compensation and feared an illegal-drug entry on her record could affect her case. The urologist later said she could not determine how the claim came to be included but that it appeared to be an error during the 'dictation or transcription process'. The same Digital Rights Watch review cited by the ABC documented a scribe recording the wrong breast in a breast cancer diagnosis and stating a patient had epilepsy when they did not.
1 Answer
Expert: Elizabeth Deveny, Chief Executive, Consumers Health Forum of Australia The claim is false. Rebecca Green has never micro-dosed mushrooms, and nothing in her history supports the entry. It was invented by the AI scribe that transcribed her appointment and then carried into the post-operative letter her urologist sent to her GP, where it was framed as a possible explanation for earlier bleeding around her kidneys. She only found it after her kidney stone surgery, by reading the letter, and worried because she was on workers' compensation that a reference to illegal drugs on her medical record could affect her case. Australia's peak regulator of medical practitioners, AHPRA, says clinicians must always check all output from an AI scribe for accuracy to meet their professional obligations. The urologist apologised, corrected the correspondence and said she would review how AI was used in her practice, but she told the ABC she had not been able to determine how the claim about mushrooms came to be included, and did not answer questions about what has changed since. The error is not an isolated one. Digital Rights Watch's report on AI medical scribes found Australians being exposed to unregulated tools, sometimes without valid consent - a waiting-room sign does not meet privacy law requirements - and documented a scribe recording the wrong breast in a diagnosis of breast cancer and saying a patient had epilepsy when they did not. Elizabeth Deveny, chief executive of the Consumers Health Forum of Australia, says patients usually find out about AI-mixed-up words by chance, and that there is evidence people check AI output carefully for the first few weeks and then stop because they assume it will be right. Perth GP Sean Stevens, who has used a scribe for three years and chairs the RACGP's Digital Health and Innovation group, says it is incumbent on the doctor to check every transcript: "The classic is, it will get the side of the body incorrect and say right when you've said left ... so you need to check things pretty closely, especially things like drug doses." Around a dozen AI scribes are available in Australia and none is approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Products that claim to be solely for transcription and summarising are exempt from oversight, so the accuracy duty sits entirely with the clinician. Digital Rights Watch has asked the new AI Safety Institute to test scribes and publish a list of approved tools. Until then, the practical check is the patient's: read the letters written about you, ask for corrections, and before consenting ask what the tool records and where the recording goes - consent has to be informed, not a sign on the wall. Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-14/ai-medical-scribe-error-leaves-patient-devastated/107031672
Your answer
Sign in to verify this AI response.
Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.
More from this topic
Ask six of the most widely used chatbots the questions people actually type at two in the morning - am I having a heart attack, should I restart exercise after COVID-19, should I check for a pulse before starting CPR - and most of the time you get an answer cardiologists rate as safe. That is the reassuring half of a 336-response test of ChatGPT Plus 5.5 thinking, Gemini 3.5 Flash, Microsoft Copilot smart, DeepSeek-V4-pro, Doubao and Perplexity against 56 sudden-cardiac-death questions. The other half is that every single one of the six models produced at least one answer carrying a potential safety concern, and the failures cluster exactly where minutes decide the outcome: telling the user to wait instead of calling emergency services for chest pain, fainting or post-viral symptoms; blanket return-to-exercise timelines after infection rather than individual cardiac assessment; pulse-check instructions that delay the start of chest compressions; over-reassurance that dismisses a person's risk; and oversimplified screening, electrolyte or implantable-defibrillator advice. None of the models reliably said where its information came from, how current it was, or how confident the reader should be - and all six wrote at reading levels too high for the older, less health-literate and non-native-speaking readers most likely to need them.
Researchers at the University of Health Sciences Turkey (Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar City Hospital, Istanbul) put five contemporary LLMs against 50 simulated pediatric difficult-airway cases, using a standardized prompt anchored in the 2022 ASA Difficult Airway Guidelines and a scoring framework built to separate two different kinds of failure: true hallucinations (invented contraindications) and false contraindications (real cautions applied to the wrong context). Across the single-pass evaluation, one model stood out for the wrong reason: Claude Opus 4.5 produced invented contraindications in 11.8% of cases, while the other four models ranged from 0.5% to 2.2%, and it recorded the highest combined critical-error rate at 23.0%, against 6.5% for both GPT models tested. GPT-5.2 Thinking was the strongest performer, with the highest mean score and the largest share of responses judged acceptable. False contraindications turned up in every model, at rates of 5.0-13.0%, and clustered around one drug: rocuronium, the neuromuscular blocker at the centre of rapid sequence intubation. Responses judged inadequate (score 2 or below) rose as cases got harder - 32-98% for difficult intubation, 46-94% for difficult ventilation and 52-92% for cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate (CICO).
An ambient AI scribe summarised a patient's consultation by recording her MRI result as "demyelination" - serious nerve damage that can lead to multiple sclerosis - when the scan had actually found "null demyelination"; the dropped negation reversed the meaning. Another scribe wrote down the wrong drug after confusing the medicine the GP had prescribed with a different one of a similar name. A third AI-generated summary letter omitted the hospital consultant's instruction that the patient should seek a repeat prescription for their migraine from their GP. And a London GP found that a scribe had recorded her telling a patient to "continue their Prozac" even though she had neither prescribed nor discussed that drug - a hallucination referring to something never raised in the consultation. Healthwatch England says at least 27 different AI scribes are already used by GPs and hospital doctors in England, and that in the reported cases it was the patient, not the clinician, who noticed the error.