2.8 minutes per appointment
In a before-and-after study involving 84 providers, mean EHR note activity fell by 2.8 minutes per appointment (95% CI, 2.1 to 3.5). This is documentation activity, not time spent acquiring the patient’s history. [1]
Workflow comparison
Digital forms, video intake or AI scribes: which does your practice need?
Choose according to the work you want to reduce. Digital forms collect fields and documents. Video intake gathers the patient’s history before the encounter. Ambient scribes draft notes from the clinician’s consultation.
Read online: https://facemed.ai/resources/forms-intake-assistants-ambient-scribes/
- Digital formsPatient types answers → responses or summaries
- Video intakePatient conversation → history notes before the visit
- Ambient scribesClinical consultation → draft visit note
Products can combine functions. Confirm the workflow included in the package you evaluate.
What is the difference between forms, video intake and an AI scribe?
Digital forms collect patient-entered fields and documents. Video intake gathers history through an interactive conversation before the encounter. An ambient scribe listens to the clinical consultation and prepares documentation from that exchange. Choose according to the work you want to reduce, and verify the specific product rather than relying on a category label.
| Buyer question | Digital forms | FaceMed pre-visit intake | Ambient scribes |
|---|---|---|---|
| When it runs | Before the visit or at check-in | Before the visit, at the patient’s convenience | During the consultation |
| Format | Digital fields, checkboxes and branching questions | Interactive voice and video conversation | Audio capture of the clinician–patient conversation |
| Who gathers the new history? | Patient fills in the selected fields | The intake agent asks physician-defined questions and follow-ups | The clinician takes the history during the recorded consultation |
| Physician benefit | Patient-entered information available for review | Structured history, including HPI, ready for review before the visit | Draft consultation notes for review |
| Patient experience | Complete a questionnaire on a phone, computer or kiosk | Open an SMS link and talk with Emily; no app download | Speak with the clinician while the conversation is captured |
| What note work remains? | Review and synthesis, depending on the product | Review, clarification, corrections and the rest of the encounter note | Review and editing of the consultation note |
| What about visual information? | Images or files if supported | Relevant observations can accompany the history | An audio-only recording does not capture visible movement |
| What should we verify for EHR use? | Which fields, documents and answers transfer | History access, note format, destination and approval | Visit-note destination, editing and finalization |
Some forms provide sophisticated branching and some scribe platforms include preparation features. Those capabilities should be tested directly. A prepared summary of existing records is different from collecting the patient’s current account.
What is conversational patient intake?
Conversational patient intake gathers a patient’s history through back-and-forth questions before an appointment. Patients explain symptoms and concerns in their own words, and follow-up questions clarify relevant details.
Emily is FaceMed’s video intake assistant. She sees, hears and talks with patients in a FaceTime-like conversation, using questions and follow-ups defined by the practice’s physicians. FaceMed prepares structured history notes in each physician’s preferred format, ready for review before new and follow-up visits.
See illustrative workflows for an orthopedic appointment and a GLP-1 follow-up intake for obesity medicine. The questions and note format can be adapted to your specialty.
Which option fits the problem you are trying to solve?
If the immediate need is collecting defined fields or documents, start with forms already available to your practice. If physicians spend substantial time eliciting the same history, examine a guided intake workflow. If the conversation works well but documentation continues after the clinic closes, examine dictation or ambient scribing.
Tools can work together. A practice might use a form for administrative fields, video intake for history and a scribe for the consultation. The combination is useful only if patients do not repeat the same preparation and clinicians do not have to reconcile several competing drafts.
How much time do intake tools and AI scribes save?
Research supports the possibility of time savings, but the result depends on what is measured. Minutes per appointment, minutes per clinical day, a percentage change in EHR activity and a physician’s estimate are different endpoints. The examples below should not be combined into a product ranking.
Results varied by tool
Among 238 outpatient physicians across 14 specialties, one of two tools reduced EHR note time by 9.5% versus usual care; the other showed no statistically significant change. The measure excluded editing inside the scribe applications. [2]
5-minute reduction
A case–control study of 104 participants found a 5-minute reduction in median nurse consultation duration with an iPad questionnaire. This was a surgical preassessment workflow, not a general outpatient physician benchmark. [3]
13-minute difference
In a matched observational study of 86 patients, median nurse consultation times were 25 versus 12 minutes after adjustment for examination time. This is a separate result, not a pooled range with the other questionnaire study. [4]
A larger 2026 cohort study across five academic institutions found AI scribe adoption associated with 13.4 fewer EHR minutes and 16.0 fewer documentation minutes per eight scheduled patient hours. It included 8,581 clinicians and 1,809 adopters. The two time measures overlap; do not add them together or present them as per-visit savings. [5]
The frequently quoted 7 minutes per encounter came from clinician reports in a 2023 vendor announcement. It is a vendor-reported result, not an independently timed category average. [6]
How should you interpret FaceMed.ai’s 11-minute estimate?
11 minutes per encounter is the average physician estimate from early testing with 10+ physicians. It covers history acquisition and documentation, with review and correction of generated notes accounted for. It is not an independently timed or head-to-head study. Read the basis of the estimate.
This difference in scope matters. A documentation study cannot establish how much history collection time another product saves. The available evidence does not support subtracting one headline number from another to calculate FaceMed.ai’s advantage.
What should a fair local comparison measure?
| Measure | How to make it useful |
|---|---|
| Physician minutes per encounter | Include history, note work, review and corrections across every application |
| Staff workload | Count invitations, support, missing information and record-handling tasks |
| Patient effort | Track completion time, abandoned sessions and assistance needed |
| Report quality | Review important omissions, unsupported statements and preservation of the patient’s priority |
| Operational effect | Record on-time starts, after-hours work and usable appointment capacity |
| Population | Compare similar visits and include noncompletion and tool nonuse |
Do not compare one vendor’s best demonstration against your busiest ordinary clinic day. Use the same questionnaires and clinically relevant information requirements. Record whether the result comes from observation, an EHR activity log or self-report.
How should integration affect the decision?
Ask what information flows in each direction, where the result appears and who approves it. A document attached to the record, a populated history section and a fully reconciled medication list are different integration outcomes. Confirm the exact workflow and failure handling before counting a transfer benefit.
FaceMed can be used without EHR integration. Share an intake link with the patient, review and correct the prepared history, then copy the reviewed notes into the existing chart. Patients open the link in a browser; no app download is required.
FaceMed also supports integration with multiple mainstream EHR systems. Connection scope, note delivery and timing are agreed for your EHR and workflow. Standalone intake does not access earlier chart records or remember information across visits. Any use of prior records is confirmed as part of the practice’s deployment.
- Can video intake replace every part of an EHR form?
- It depends on the field and workflow. Video history collection does not automatically replace registration, consent, payment or other administrative functions. Keep the tools that serve those purposes well.
- Can an AI scribe and Emily be used together?
- They address different parts of the encounter and may complement each other. Evaluate the handoff so the physician receives a useful history and a coherent final record without duplicate review.
Sources and further reading
- Pelletier et al. (2025), Effect of a generative AI digital scribe on pediatric provider documentation time, JAMIA Open
- Lukac et al. (2025), Ambient AI Scribes in Clinical Practice: A Randomized Trial, NEJM AI
- Howell et al. (2017; online 2015), Use of a patient completed iPad questionnaire to improve preoperative assessment
- Taylor et al. (2018), Electronic questionnaire and nurse-led preoperative assessment, PLOS ONE
- Rotenstein et al. (2026), Changes in Clinician Time Expenditure and Visit Quantity With Adoption of AI Scribes, JAMA
- Vendor announcement (27 June 2023), ambient documentation integration