Clinical AI could ease workforce pressures, but HR is still largely absent from decisions about its use, says Dr Scott Fraser, Vice President, GCC at Heidi
Clinical AI is increasingly being assessed through two familiar lenses: its commercial value and its clinical performance. Yet growing evidence that the technology can reduce burnout, ease workloads and help clinicians spend more time with patients suggests a third perspective is needed.
Healthcare organisations should give their HR teams a formal role in selecting and evaluating clinical AI. The technology may be procured as a digital tool, but its effects extend directly into workforce wellbeing and retention.
Research published in JAMA Network Open in October 2025 followed 263 clinicians across six US health systems during their first 30 days using an ambient AI scribe. Reported burnout fell from 51.9 per cent to 38.8 per cent, while clinicians experienced less cognitive strain and were able to pay greater attention to patients. A separate analysis of 23 studies found similar results across a range of healthcare settings and specialties.
Burnout and work completed outside contracted hours are central measures of workforce health. They also have significant financial consequences, particularly when an experienced doctor or nurse leaves and must be replaced.
An accompanying JAMA editorial identified clinician wellbeing and retention as one of three areas through which organisations should assess the return on ambient AI. However, decisions about the technology are still generally led by senior management, digital teams and clinical leaders.
The third lens
Commercial leaders understandably focus on productivity and the time required to achieve a return on investment. Clinical leaders consider accuracy, patient safety and whether a system fits existing patterns of care. Both perspectives are essential, but neither fully addresses the effect on the people expected to use the technology every day.
Poorly implemented AI can add another process to an already demanding workload. A successful system should remove work, rather than require clinicians to supervise an additional administrative layer. Distinguishing between the two depends partly on understanding how responsibilities and daily routines will change.
HR teams already oversee workforce planning, recruitment, professional development and staff retention. Yet research many only become involved only after important technology decisions have been made.
SHRM’s 2026 State of AI in HR report found that 52 per cent of organisations gave HR no direct involvement in AI strategy. Research by Beamery found that fewer than one in three HR leaders were involved from the outset, with many consulted only during implementation. Yet Microsoft’s 2026 Work Trend Index, drawing on 20,000 AI-using workers, found that 67 per cent of AI’s measurable impact at work runs through factors HR controls: culture, manager behaviour and the design of roles.
Such a late intervention limits HR to arranging training or managing the consequences of a decision, rather than helping to shape how work is redesigned.
Evidence from the NHS
The NHS is beginning to treat ambient clinical technology explicitly as a workforce intervention. Its 10 Year Health Plan supports the expansion of AI scribes to free staff from administrative work and create more time for patient care. NHS England guidance also identifies reduced burnout and increased face-to-face time with patients as reasons for adopting ambient scribing.
Heidi’s 2026 UK Impact Report drew on ten independent service evaluations covering more than 15m patient visits. It reported an average reduction of 86 per cent in documentation time and more than four million hours of clinical capacity returned to frontline teams.
At Modality Partnership, paperwork completed outside contracted hours fell by 61 per cent, while documentation-related stress declined by 58 per cent. Three-quarters of GPs said they felt a stronger connection with patients.
An independent evaluation by York Health Economics Consortium also found that an ambient AI system returned 11.4 minutes per patient visit within a community frailty service. Administrative work fell from 38 per cent to 23 per cent of patient management time, producing an estimated return of £5.10 for every £1 spent.
Gulf workforce priorities
The argument may be especially relevant in the Gulf, where health systems rely heavily on an internationally recruited clinical workforce. Around 82 per cent of doctors and 96 per cent of nurses in the UAE are expatriates. Saudi Arabia is also expected to require more than 20,000 additional doctors by 2030.
Clinicians working in the region remain part of a highly competitive international labour market. Excessive workloads and limited organisational support can therefore affect not only individual hospitals but also national plans to expand healthcare capacity.
AI that genuinely allows clinicians to finish documentation earlier and spend more time with patients could become part of an organisation’s employment proposition. Unlike salary packages or other benefits that competitors can readily reproduce, evidence of a better working environment may provide a more distinctive recruitment and retention advantage.
HR involvement should begin at procurement rather than implementation. Workforce measures such as burnout and after-hours work could be included in vendor assessments alongside price and clinical performance.
HR leaders could also take a formal place within AI governance and prepare managers before systems reach frontline teams. They should then monitor the technology’s effect on retention. Such involvement would not require HR professionals to judge clinical accuracy or oversee technical integration. Their role would be to ensure that investment in AI results in genuine work removal and a measurable improvement in clinicians’ working lives.
Commercial and clinical scrutiny will remain indispensable. Adding a workforce perspective would help organisations determine whether clinical AI is simply another digital system or a meaningful intervention in the pressures driving clinicians away.
Have some thoughts on the topic? Share them with the community here