Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai In Clinical Practice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory committee urges informed‑consent, confidentiality safeguards for clinician use of AI
Summary
Committee members discussed survey responses on artificial intelligence use in practice and recommended requiring informed consent, clinician accountability for AI‑generated documentation, and discouraging use of chatbots as substitutes for licensed providers.
The advisory committee discussed licensee responses about artificial intelligence in practice and identified principles members want the board to consider: informed consent, confidentiality protections, clinician review and sign‑off of AI‑generated notes, and caution or restriction on using chatbots as a substitute for licensed treatment.
David Fye noted most survey respondents reported not using AI at the time they answered, but the committee discussed rapid change in tools and the possibility that many clinicians use AI functions without realizing it. “Earlier this year 54 of 69 said they don’t use it in their practice,” Fye said, while adding the technology landscape is shifting quickly.
Committee members described three common use cases: administrative tools that transcribe or draft notes, practice aids that suggest evidence‑based treatment language, and consumer‑facing apps or chatbots. Several clinicians said common practice‑management products (for example, SimplePractice and similar systems) can produce draft notes that still require clinician review. One committee member summarized the ethical concern: when clinicians ask clients to consent to new technology, the client may feel pressured to agree because of the clinician’s authority. “There is this power dynamic when we think about, like, are they really okay giving consent,” Ranisha Hunter said.
The committee identified possible recommendations to forward to the board: require disclosure to clients when AI tools will be used; ensure client ability to opt out of AI use in their care; emphasize that clinicians retain professional responsibility for AI‑generated documentation and must review and sign all records; and discourage use of chatbots as a standalone avenue for clinical treatment. Members agreed the board should avoid prescriptive bans that would quickly become obsolete and instead focus on guardrails that protect confidentiality and client autonomy.
Why it matters: AI is increasingly embedded in practice software and clinical workflows. The committee’s recommendations would affect clinician workflows, informed‑consent materials and documentation practices across Kansas.
Next steps: staff will include the committee’s recommendations in the survey report and present draft language for nonbinding guidance or regulatory options at a future meeting.
