Over 1 in 4 GPs use AI at work but national policy failing to keep up with pace of change

Over 1 in 4 GPs (28%) say they use AI tools to help with their work, but they are faced with a “wild west” when deciding which tools to use and how, due to a lack of consistent national guidance or formal AI training. This raises concerns about patient safety, and could also worsen health inequalities, as practices in deprived areas are less likely to provide access to AI tools. That’s according to a new Nuffield Trust and Royal College of General Practitioners analysis of focus groups and the largest survey to date on how GPs are using AI.

The poll responded to by over 2,100 GPs found that 13% of GPs use AI tools provided by their practice, and 11% are using tools they have obtained independently (such as ChatGPT), while 4% use a combination of both. Tools are being used for a wide range of tasks, including producing clinical notes and referral letters, triaging patients based on clinical need, and helping trainees with learning and assessments¹. The report shows that regulation and training around AI in general practice isn’t happening fast enough and suggests the pace at which it's being adopted is clashing with slow NHS bureaucracy.

With general practice under immense pressure, GPs say AI is mainly helping them to reduce overtime work and the burden of admin.² The Government has high hopes that AI will make the NHS more productive, but its 10 Year Health Plan lacks clear targets and has a limited roadmap for how to get there. Today’s report reveals a mismatch between the perceived benefits of AI for GPs (saving time, reducing admin burden, and improved wellbeing) and the Government’s policy ambitions for scaling up the use of AI, which are largely focused on boosting productivity and enabling GPs to see more patients. However, the report also sets out several other benefits of GPs using AI, for example AI scribes allowing many GPs to engage more meaningfully with patients during appointments and producing accessible consultation records for patients.³

Further findings include:

• The benefits of AI in general practice are not being realised equally, raising concerns that current adoption patterns may actually worsen existing inequalities. Of the 1046 GPs who said they worked in more deprived areas, just over a quarter (27%) said they used AI tools compared to over a third (35%) of the 467 GPs who said they worked in more affluent areas.
• Male GPs were significantly more likely to use AI than female GPs: of the 848 Male GPs who responded to the survey, a third (33%) said they used AI. This compared to a quarter (25%) of the 1,184 female GPs. Male GPs were also significantly more likely to use self-provided AI tools in their work (15%) than female respondents (8%).
• Of the 597 GPs who answered questions about how they use AI, 57% said they were using it for clinical documentation and note taking, 45% for professional development and 44% for administrative tasks.
• GPs at all career stages expressed concerns about patient safety, professional liability, data privacy and patient consent, the doctor-patient relationship, and digital exclusion. Notably, the 1,432 non-users were consistently the most concerned about these factors.
• A lack of regulatory oversight was raised as a concern by the majority (84%) of GPs, something the authors suggest is a deterrent for the two-thirds of respondents saying they are not using AI at all.

GP use of AI currently depends too heavily on a postcode lottery of local policies developed by their practice, primary care network and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) - some ICBs forbid all AI use and others are actively encouraging safe use and piloting. GPs often have to make decisions about which tools to use based on peer-experience, or direct-marketing from AI companies.

The report sets out clear actions for policymakers, technology companies and GP practices to ensure AI is used safely and effectively. These include urgently establishing consistent national guidance, improving training, reducing AI inaccuracies, and supporting practices to test and share learning.

Nuffield Trust Director of Research and Policy and practising GP, Dr Becks Fisher said:

"The government is pinning its hopes on the potential of AI to transform the NHS, but there is a huge chasm between policy ambitions and the current disorganised reality of how AI is being rolled out and used in general practice.

"It is very hard for GPs to feel confident about using AI when they’re facing a wild west of tools which are unregulated at a national level in the NHS. At the moment, many GP surgeries are left to decide for themselves how to use AI and there is a huge range of different tools and possible uses, from AI listening in to appointments and creating notes, to analysing patients' online requests to help with prioritising them based on medical urgency. Guidance for GPs from their local NHS oversight bodies about what tools are appropriate to use and safe for patients is also incredibly patchy.

"We have uncovered some clear reasons for optimism about how AI is helping GPs save time at work, but that comes alongside worrying variation in how different groups of GPs are using it. This could be yet another way that health inequalities are being baked in, precisely when the government aims to reduce disparities in general practice."

Prof Victoria Tzortziou-Brown, Chair of the Royal College of GPs, said:

“GPs have historically been early adopters of technology that can improve patient care, so it is interesting to see that many are already beginning to trial AI in practical ways to manage escalating workloads and free up time to spend with patients.

“However, as this report makes clear, GPs are flying blind when making decisions about how to use AI. Without appropriate regulation in place or proper national guidance and with variable access to safe and effective AI tools, which could potentially exacerbate health inequalities.

“AI clearly has the potential to dramatically change the way healthcare is delivered for the better - but using AI in practice is certainly not without risk, with patient safety and data protection at stake if robust safeguards and regulation are not in place.

“If AI is going to help GPs deliver high quality care for patients, it is paramount that there is further investment into modern IT systems, consistent national policy and regulations, and the right support so that practices can adopt new technologies safely and effectively.”

Notes to Editors

Read the full report (PDF file, 781 KB)

The research used a mixed-methods approach, combining a nationwide survey with a series of online focus group discussions. Nuffield Trust collaborated with the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) to embed AI-related questions, designed by the Nuffield Trust, into RCGP’s GP Voice survey 2025. 2,108 currently practicing GPs responded to the questions on AI use.

1. Early career GPs talked about using AI for learning about challenging topics or self-perceived weak points and cited ChatGPT's study mode as a source for learning, suggesting "it sticks in my brain better".
2. Discussing AI scribes, one senior career GP noted: "it takes away the cognitive burden in your day and it's saving on average, probably a good 60 minutes of my admin time each day pretty much without much exaggeration."
3. One participant shared how AI scribes allow better patient engagement: "it creates a better rapport with the patients because you're giving those cues, like you're looking at the patients, you're looking at their nonverbal cues because you're less focused on maybe doing your notes."

About Nuffield Trust

The Nuffield Trust is an independent health think tank. We aim to improve the quality of health care in the UK by providing evidence-based research and policy analysis and informing and generating debate.

For all queries or to arrange an interview, contact our press office: press.office@nuffieldtrust.org.uk; or 020 7462 0500.

About the RCGP

The Royal College of General Practitioners is a network of more than 54,000 family doctors working to improve care for patients. We work to encourage and maintain the highest standards of general medical practice and act as the voice of GPs on education, training, research and clinical standards.