{"resourceId":"secamb-para-ai-paramedic-survey-96pct-clinician-responsibility-20261022","versions":[{"version":"external-1e30440959ea1f4fb416e049a0f18405759bbe5ea35a47a618d0890ff3f5aedb","resource":{"id":"secamb-para-ai-paramedic-survey-96pct-clinician-responsibility-20261022","title":"SECAmb paramedic study: 83% would use AI with safeguards, over 96% want final clinical responsibility kept with paramedics","organization":"South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SECAmb)","sector":"Emergency medical services","geography":"South East England, United Kingdom","publishedAt":"2026-10-22","publicationDate":"2026-10-22","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"SECAmb (NHS)","sourceLabel":"SECAmb news: SECAmb paramedic team present AI findings","sourceUrl":"https://www.secamb.nhs.uk/secamb-paramedic-team-present-ai-findings/","evidenceClass":"independent-research","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["accessibility-workforce","governance-procurement","operating-model"],"finding":"An NHS ambulance trust reports a 10-month mixed-methods PARA-AI study by its own paramedics (171 survey responses, 14 interviews). 83% would use AI clinically with appropriate safeguards; more than 96% said final clinical responsibility should stay with paramedics; 92% want paramedics involved in designing and testing AI tools; 80% said clear governance, audit and accountability would raise trust; 83% worried about over-reliance. The team built a roadmap for introducing AI to be presented to stakeholders. A separate AT PACE study will simulate 50 participants using AI for electronic patient record documentation with a head-mounted voice device.","sledRelevance":"U.S. EMS agencies weighing AI documentation or decision support face the same workforce-acceptance questions; this gives a concrete survey instrument and acceptance thresholds, with transferability limited to a single UK trust.","evidence":"Staff survey and interviews summarized in a trust news release; no response rate, sampling method or full report is published; AT PACE has no results yet.","architectureImplications":"Points toward AI as documentation and decision-support tooling inside ePCR workflows, possibly voice-operated wearables; no system is specified.","governanceImplications":"Respondents tie trust to audit processes and accountability and want clinician sign-off retained, which argues for human-final-decision rules in any EMS AI policy.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Not discussed; voice capture and ePCR integration would involve patient health data under clinical governance rules.","caveats":"Self-reported attitudes from one trust; survey sample may be self-selected; findings are presented in a news item, not a peer-reviewed paper; no outcome data.","streamIds":["emergency-services"],"roles":{"sales":"For sales, the useful signal is conditional acceptance: most SECAmb paramedics would use AI with safeguards, but almost all insist the clinician keeps final responsibility. Conversations with EMS leaders should open with documentation burden and decision support framed as assistance, not automation. A workforce-acceptance survey modeled on PARA-AI is a credible first step. This evidence cannot support claims about time saved, clinical outcomes or adoption rates in U.S. agencies, and it reflects one trust's staff attitudes rather than measured performance.","engineering":"For pre-sales engineering, the study points to ePCR documentation and decision support as the likely first use, with voice-operated wearables being tested in AT PACE. Designs should log AI suggestions and clinician overrides so audits are possible, because respondents tie trust to audit and accountability. Integration with existing patient record systems and clinical governance review is a prerequisite. No architecture, vendor or accuracy data is given, so any proof of value must measure documentation accuracy and clinician edit rates directly.","delivery":"For delivery, the work is change management as much as technology: involve paramedics in design and testing, set rules that the clinician signs off every AI-generated output, and monitor for over-reliance. Ownership sits with the EMS medical director and clinical governance lead. Acceptance should be judged on measured documentation quality and staff trust over time, not on launch. Risks include deskilling, unclear liability when AI suggestions are wrong, and survey results that do not transfer to other agencies or roles."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"EMS leaders want AI help with documentation and decisions but need paramedics to accept it and keep accountability.","stakeholders":["EMS medical director","Clinical governance lead","Paramedic workforce and unions","ePCR system owner"],"discoveryQuestions":["Have you measured staff attitudes toward AI before choosing a use case?","Which documentation or decision tasks do paramedics most want help with?","What audit and sign-off rules would your medical director require?"],"valueHypothesis":"A co-designed, audited AI assistant may gain staff acceptance where a top-down rollout would not (interpretation).","potentialEngagement":"A bounded workforce-acceptance survey and co-design workshop before any EMS AI pilot.","unsupportedClaims":["Any time savings or documentation-quality gains","Improved patient outcomes","That U.S. paramedics share these attitudes"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Fits AI documentation and decision support inside existing ePCR workflows with clinician sign-off.","architectureIntegration":"AI suggestions would feed the ePCR as drafts, with override and audit logging; voice wearables are being tested separately.","prerequisites":["ePCR integration access","Clinical governance approval","Audit logging of AI suggestions and edits"],"constraints":["Single UK trust attitudes","No accuracy data for any tool","Patient data rules vary by jurisdiction"],"security":"Voice and record data are patient health information and need clinical-grade access control and retention rules.","proofOfValue":["Measure clinician edit and override rates on AI drafts","Re-survey staff trust after a pilot","Check documentation accuracy against manual records"]},"delivery":{"work":"Run co-design, pilot an AI documentation aid with mandatory clinician sign-off, and monitor reliance.","dependencies":["Paramedic participation in testing","ePCR vendor cooperation","Medical director policy"],"ownership":"EMS medical director with the clinical governance team.","skillsAdoption":"Training should stress independent clinical reasoning and how to challenge AI output.","governanceCheckpoints":["Policy that the clinician holds final responsibility","Audit review of AI suggestions","Staff consultation before scale-up"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: majority of pilot staff report trust after audit features are in place","Proposed: no rise in documentation errors versus baseline"],"risks":["Over-reliance and deskilling","Unclear liability for wrong suggestions","Low transferability of attitudes"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-23T22:05:04-05:00","enrichedAt":"2026-10-23T22:08:44-05:00","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Shows paramedics want co-design roles and fear deskilling through over-reliance; training must preserve independent clinical reasoning.","procurementImplications":"Buyers could require clinician participation in testing and audit features as procurement conditions.","operatingModelImplications":"Supports a model where AI drafts or suggests and the paramedic remains accountable for the clinical decision.","sourceVerification":{"responseId":"curl-secamb-2026-10-23","openedUrl":"https://www.secamb.nhs.uk/secamb-paramedic-team-present-ai-findings/","referenceExcerpt":"more than 96 per cent agreeing that final clinical responsibility should remain with paramedics","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}