AI takes hold in allied health as standards play catch-up

Almost a third of Australian practitioners are using AI daily, as the peak allied health body warns clinicians remain responsible for the accuracy of AI-generated records.

---

Australian allied health practitioners are embracing artificial intelligence for clinical documentation, even as professional standards governing its use continue to evolve and questions remain over consent, privacy, and the adequacy of AI-generated clinical records.

A survey by practice management software company Zanda found 32.2% of 451 Australian respondents were using AI daily, with a further 30% using it weekly or occasionally.

Australia had the highest daily adoption rate of the three countries for which Zanda reported country-level results, ahead of the US at 25.8% and UK at 15.6%.

“Australia leads on daily use,” the report said. “On overall adoption, the US and Australia are close enough to call it even.”

Across the entire survey, clinical documentation was by far one of the most common applications of the technology, with 76% of AI users using it for clinical note drafting and 72% for letters and reports.

Zanda’s own platform data showed use of its AI note-taking tool increased 88.2% over the past year, while use of its AI note-editing tool rose 92.4%.

But the report also identified concerns about whether AI-generated notes adequately captured practitioners’ clinical reasoning.

“AI documents conversations, not interventions,” one Australian psychologist and practice owner told the survey.

Zanda said respondents had raised concerns that notes could appear comprehensive while failing to capture the observations, clinical judgments, and reasoning underpinning treatment decisions.

“What makes a clinical note clinically adequate in the context of AI-generated documentation is not yet settled, and working through that question thoughtfully will matter for practitioners, supervisors, and regulators alike,” the report said.

Practitioner remains responsible

Allied Health Professionals Australia CEO Bronwyn Morris-Donovan told HSD that regulatory and professional standards were continuing to develop as AI technology evolved.

“These technologies have moved quickly, and Australia’s regulatory and professional standards are continuing to evolve alongside them,” she said.

“While AI tools may be used differently across health professions, the fundamental expectations around clinical quality, safety, and professional accountability remain the same whether the user is a doctor, nurse, or allied health professional.”

Ms Morris-Donovan said Australia would benefit from a “consistent, whole-of-health-system approach” to the safe use of the technology.

She was also clear that using AI to produce clinical notes did not transfer responsibility for the resulting record from the health professional to the technology.

“AI can be a useful assistive tool, particularly in reducing the documentation burden on clinicians, but it doesn’t replace professional judgement or clinical oversight,” she said.

“The practitioner still needs to review the record and remains responsible for making sure it is accurate, complete, and appropriate.”

Consent and privacy questions

Ms Morris-Donovan said the use of AI should also be disclosed to patients as part of the consent process.

“Informed consent is already a critical part of high quality, safe allied health care, and the use of AI should form part of the informed consent conversation,” she said.

“Consumers should understand when AI is being used in their care and how their information is being handled.”

Those concerns are also reflected in the Zanda research.

The report asked whether clients knew the content of their appointments was being processed by third-party systems when AI was used to draft clinical notes, what they understood about where and for how long their information was stored, and whether existing informed-consent processes adequately covered AI processing of clinical information.

One Australian occupational therapist surveyed said:

“I worry about breaches of confidential information and non-required or overly personal information being shared unnecessarily and therefore harming clients, their reputation, or their trust of the profession.”

Australian sample dominated by mental health

The report was based on a survey of 682 practitioners from Zanda’s user base conducted between March and May, supplemented by platform data from its broader base of 44,000 practitioners.

Zanda told HSD that 451 respondents – 66.1% of the survey sample – were based in Australia.

Of those, 264, or 58.5%, worked in psychology or mental health, while another 31, or 6.9%, were in counselling.

The Australian sample included 23 occupational therapy respondents, 22 from physiotherapy, 13 multidisciplinary clinics, 12 speech pathologists, and 12 massage therapists.

Another 64 respondents were spread across other specialist or specified practice types including podiatry, exercise physiology, chiropractic, social work, dietetics, kinesiology, Chinese medicine, naturopathy, audiology, and art therapy, while 10 did not provide a practice type.

Zanda itself cautioned in the report that findings by country and subgroup “should be read as directional rather than precise, particularly for markets with smaller samples”.

Among Australian AI users, 51.4% reported cutting their documentation time by at least 26%, while 11.4% reported no measurable reduction.

The report found the technology was also changing consultations from the other side of the desk: 70.2% of practitioners across the survey said they had encountered clients who referred to AI-generated health information during consultations in the previous 12 months.

“The practitioner is no longer the first source of health information their client encounters,” the report said.

“Managing that shift, knowing when AI-sourced information is helpful context and when it is misleading noise that needs to be carefully unpacked, is becoming a core clinical skill.”

Read the full Zanda report here.