Artificial intelligence has become one of the most polarizing topics of our time. Public conversations often seem divided between enthusiastic adopters who increasingly rely on AI in their daily lives and skeptics who question its reliability, implications and place in society. But what happens when we ask the people whose decisions can have life-changing consequences?
For physicians, the conversation is more nuanced. Artificial intelligence is introducing new possibilities for clinical research, documentation, administrative workflows and decision support. Yet the promise of greater efficiency comes with important questions about accuracy, accountability and the role of human judgment in patient care.
Synergy Health Partners explored these questions in its inaugural 2026 AI in Clinical Practice Survey, gathering perspectives from physicians across multiple specialties about how they use AI, where they see its potential and what concerns them most.
One finding stood out: 78% of responding prospective physicians reported some level of AI use in their professional practice.
Their responses suggest that physicians aren’t choosing between embracing AI and rejecting it. Instead, they’re exploring how emerging technologies can support their work while protecting the clinical expertise, professional judgment and human connection that define excellent patient care.
How Are Doctors Using AI in Medical Practice?
AI is no longer simply a future consideration for healthcare. Respondents identified a range of applications, including medical research, clinical documentation, coding and billing, education and training, and clinical decision support.
The tools physicians reported using included general-purpose AI platforms such as ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini, alongside healthcare-focused resources such as OpenEvidence.
These findings suggest that doctors are experimenting with AI across different aspects of their work, rather than relying on a single application or use case. For some, AI may offer a faster way to access or organize information. For others, its value may lie in simplifying administrative tasks that compete with time spent caring for patients.
Importantly, the survey measured self-reported use, not the effectiveness of specific AI applications. The results offer a snapshot of how participating physicians are engaging with the technology, rather than a comprehensive measure of AI adoption across the medical profession.
What Are the Benefits of AI for Physicians?
One of the clearest themes in the survey was AI’s potential to make medical practice more efficient.
Physicians described opportunities to reduce time spent on administrative work, simplify documentation and access medical information more quickly. Respondents also recognized the potential for AI to support research, improve workflows and help clinicians spend more time on patient care.
These applications address a familiar challenge in medicine: Physicians are responsible for far more than diagnosing and treating patients. Documentation, information management and administrative requirements compete for time and attention.
AI offers the possibility of easing some of those demands.
For surgeons and other specialists, whose work requires significant preparation, coordination and clinical decision-making, tools that reduce unnecessary administrative burdens could be especially valuable.
But efficiency alone is not the ultimate measure of success. The more meaningful question is whether technology helps physicians practice medicine more effectively while preserving the quality of care their patients expect.
What Concerns Do Physicians Have About Clinical AI?
The survey also revealed an important counterbalance to enthusiasm for AI: Physicians are thinking critically about its limitations.
Respondents raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated information, the potential for errors, liability when technology contributes to clinical decisions and the risk of becoming overly dependent on automated tools.
Some expressed concern that overreliance on AI could diminish critical thinking or weaken the role of physician expertise. These concerns are particularly relevant in clinical environments where decisions can have significant consequences for patient safety.
An AI tool may be able to summarize information, identify patterns or assist with documentation. But those capabilities do not eliminate the need for a physician to interpret findings, understand a patient’s circumstances and exercise sound clinical judgment.
The distinction matters. Using AI to support medical decision-making is not the same as allowing AI to make those decisions.
Physicians’ skepticism should not necessarily be interpreted as resistance to innovation. It can also reflect the professional responsibility that comes with practicing medicine.
Can AI Support Doctors Without Replacing Human Judgment?
The findings point toward a perspective that can sometimes get lost in polarized conversations about artificial intelligence.
Innovation and healthy skepticism are not mutually exclusive. Physicians can recognize AI’s potential to improve efficiency and access to information while remaining appropriately cautious about its reliability, limitations and implications for patient care.
In fact, those perspectives may be complementary.
Clinical experience, professional knowledge and the ability to understand an individual patient’s needs remain essential to medical practice. AI may provide new tools for applying that expertise, but it does not replace the human qualities that make it valuable.
A physician’s judgment draws on years of education, training and direct patient experience. It also depends on understanding circumstances that may not be fully captured in a medical record or recognized by an algorithm.
The physicians who participated in Synergy’s survey offered a useful reminder that the future of medicine is not simply a choice between human expertise and technology.
The more productive conversation is about how the two can work together.
What Does the Future of AI in Medicine Look Like?
As AI becomes more prevalent in healthcare, decisions about its development and implementation will influence how physicians work, how medical information is evaluated and how patients experience care.
Physicians should have a meaningful voice in those decisions.
Their firsthand experience provides insight into where technology can remove unnecessary burdens, where it may introduce new risks and where human judgment must remain central.
That perspective is especially important in surgical and specialty care, where clinical expertise, experience and accountability are fundamental to successful outcomes.
The future of AI in medicine will depend on more than technological capability. It will also require thoughtful implementation, appropriate safeguards and a clear understanding of how these tools support the people responsible for delivering care.
At Synergy Health Partners, our physician-led approach is grounded in the belief that the people practicing medicine should help shape its future. Listening to physicians about emerging technologies is one way we can better understand the changing realities of medical practice and the opportunities to support physicians in doing their best work.
Why Synergy Is Making Physician AI Research an Ongoing Initiative
The 2026 AI in Clinical Practice Survey is the first in what Synergy Health Partners plans to make an evergreen research initiative.
As AI technologies evolve, so will the opportunities, concerns and expectations surrounding their use in medicine.
Future surveys will give us an opportunity to explore how physician adoption changes, which applications become more valuable and whether attitudes toward trust, accuracy and clinical oversight shift over time.
Just as importantly, they will help keep physicians’ perspectives at the center of a conversation that too often focuses on technology itself.
Our inaugural findings suggest that physicians are willing to explore the possibilities of AI while remaining committed to the experience, knowledge and clinical excellence that define their profession.
That’s an encouraging starting point, and one we’ll continue to follow.
