Why aren’t dental practices adopting AI note-taking and what can they do about it?

Admin is one of the biggest drains on clinical time in dental practice. AI note-taking tools, already integrated into systems such as Dentally, R4 and Software of Excellence, could meaningfully reduce that burden. So why are so few practices actually using them? Communication consultant Monika Morgan explains.

In the AI literacy training sessions I run with NHS and private dental teams, most clinicians have at least heard of AI note-taking. Some have even tried it. Few are using it consistently as part of their workflow.

If the technology exists and awareness is growing, what is stopping dental practices from embracing tools that could save teams hours of admin work every week?

The answer is not technical. It is organisational.

Why adoption is failing

In practice, three barriers consistently prevent AI note-taking from moving beyond initial curiosity: tools are judged too early, there is no shared standard for what good looks like, and no one owns making it work.

The pattern is easy to recognise and it is one I see repeatedly in training sessions with NHS teams. A clinician tries an AI note-taking feature once or twice. The output is not quite right – too much captured, or nuance missed, for example. The tool is dismissed as inaccurate. ‘I’d probably use it if I knew it recorded the useful parts but left out things like when I ask the nurse to pass me things,’ one clinician said. But AI is only as good as the judgement behind it. Getting to a high-quality output requires upfront effort: testing, iteration and adjustment. It needs, in effect, to be trained.

Even when teams get past that stage, a second issue emerges: no shared definition of quality. What makes a good clinical note? What needs to be captured, what can be left out, and how should AI-generated content be reviewed? In many practices these questions are left to individual clinicians to decide. The result is inconsistency – and hesitation. When everyone is making their own judgement call, AI becomes a personal risk rather than a supported way of working. A tech-curious endodontist I have worked with admitted that while she would like to use an AI note-taking tool, she is waiting for someone else to go first and establish guidelines.

This is where the third barrier becomes critical: ownership. In practices where no senior leader has clearly endorsed or guided the use of AI, adoption remains fragmented. Without clear direction, AI note-taking becomes something people experiment with privately rather than something the practice has chosen to do.

The data protection question

Alongside these internal barriers, there is a common external concern: data protection.

Clinicians are legally and ethically responsible for the content of their records, regardless of how they are produced. Introducing AI into that process raises important questions. Are consultations being recorded or simply transcribed? How is patient consent handled? Where is data stored?

Professional bodies such as the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland (MDDUS) and the General Dental Council (GDC) offer guidance, but it does not always reach those making day-to-day decisions in practice. In a healthcare environment, uncertainty does not lead to experimentation — it leads to inaction.

How dental practices can make AI note-taking work

The technology is available. The challenge is getting it into the workflow. Five steps can help close that gap.

Make a clear decision

If AI note-taking is something the practice wants to explore, that needs to be stated explicitly by practice leadership. Without that signal, teams will continue to treat it as an individual experiment rather than a shared process.

Define what good looks like

This does not require a fully developed policy, but it does require clarity. What should an acceptable AI-generated note include? What needs to be checked? What level of editing is expected before it is finalised? A simple, shared standard removes uncertainty and builds confidence.

Start small

Rather than attempting to roll out AI across all documentation, focus on one specific use case – capturing consent discussions or summarising clinical findings, for example. Testing one scenario properly makes it easier to understand where the tool adds value and where it needs adjustment.

Treat AI output as a draft, not a final version

The role of AI here is not to replace clinical judgement but to reduce the time it takes to produce a usable first draft. Framing it this way helps manage expectations and reduces the risk of over-reliance.

Assign ownership

Someone in the practice needs to be responsible for testing, refining and guiding how AI note-taking is used. Without ownership, tools remain in the ‘interesting but optional’ category. With it, they have a chance to become part of how the practice operates.

AI note-taking is not a future dental concept. It is available now, in many cases already integrated into the systems dental practices use every day. The challenge is closing the gap between initial curiosity and consistent use – and that requires clarity, confidence and direction, not better technology.

Follow Dentistry.co.uk on Instagram to keep up with all the latest dental news and trends.