Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Media Coverage

London: AI-generated GP record summary falsely listed diabetes, and a healthy patient was invited to diabetic eye screening, Fortune reports

Fortune reported on 20 July 2025 that a London patient, a healthy man in his mid-20s, had recently received a letter inviting him to diabetic eye screening although he had never been diagnosed with diabetes. He told Fortune he briefly worried he had been diagnosed without knowing, then assumed an admin error. The next day a nurse at a routine blood test questioned the diagnosis and showed him the notes on the system, which were AI-generated summaries. In his full records, which Fortune reviewed, the entry that introduced the diagnosis was listed as a summary 'generated by Annie AI', the tool of Anima Health. It said he had presented with chest pain and shortness of breath from likely angina due to coronary artery disease, that he had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and was on medications with dosages, and it gave the source document's address as a fictitious 'Health Hospital' on '456 Care Road' in 'Health City'. According to the patient and other records Fortune reviewed, none of these details was accurate; the entry appeared around the time he had attended hospital with tonsillitis, which it did not mention. Fortune writes that the invitation was presumably based on the erroneous summary. An NHS representative told Fortune the practice makes limited use of supervised AI, that Anima only suggests codes and a summary to a human reviewer, and that the error was a one-off human error: a summariser had spotted the mistake but, distracted, saved the original version instead of the corrected one. Anima Health did not respond to Fortune.

AI system
Anima Annie
Anima Health
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
20 July 2025
Event location
United Kingdom
What the AI did
Made a claim about the person
Reported harm
Psychological DistressOther Material Harm
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Health · Public services
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
6 claims: 6 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Annie, Anima Health's AI tool in a document management system used by the GP practice, which according to the NHS representative suggests codes and a summary of incoming documents to a human reviewer; the record entry was listed as 'generated by Annie AI'

Reported harm

According to Fortune, an AI-generated summary saved to a London patient's GP record falsely stated diabetes, medications and likely angina, and he received a diabetic eye-screening invitation that Fortune says was presumably based on it; he told Fortune he briefly worried he had been diagnosed without knowing.

Outcome

Unknown

The NHS representative described the error to Fortune as a one-off human error in reviewing the AI summary. Fortune reports that Anima Health was pursuing Class 2a medical-device registration. No correction of the record, complaint outcome or regulator action is reported.

What remains unknown

  • The date of the record entry and of the screening invitation; Fortune says only that the patient recently received the letter.
  • Whether the invitation was generated from the coded diagnosis in the summary; Fortune presumes so.
  • Whether the record has been corrected, and whether any complaint, practice review or regulator action followed.
  • The name and location of the GP practice.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. Fortune reports, from the patient's records it reviewed, that the entry introducing the diabetes diagnosis was listed as a summary 'generated by Annie AI' and contained false diagnoses, medications and a fictitious hospital address; the NHS representative confirms that Anima suggests a summary to a human reviewer and that the reviewer saved the original version instead of a corrected one. Fortune writes that the diabetic eye-screening invitation was presumably based on that summary. The link from the summary to the invitation is Fortune's inference, and the NHS attributes the failure to human error in review.

6 claims: 6 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported An entry in the patient's GP record, listed as a summary 'generated by Annie AI', stated that he had presented with chest pain and shortness of breath attributed to likely angina due to coronary artery disease, that he had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and was on medications with dosage details, and gave the source document's address as a fictitious 'Health Hospital' on '456 Care Road' in 'Health City'.

Causal attribution. Contents of the record as the patient and Fortune, which reviewed the records, report them; the record itself was not inspected.

  • fortune.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'the patient noticed the entry that had introduced the diabetes diagnosis was listed as a summary that had been “generated by Annie AI.”'; 'it said he had presented with chest pain and shortness of breath, attributed to a “likely angina due to coronary artery disease.”'; 'also noted the patient had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes late last year and was currently on a series of medications'; 'fictitious “Health Hospital” located on “456 Care Road” in “Health City.”'
Reported According to the patient and other medical records reviewed by Fortune, none of these details was accurate; the entry appeared around the time he had attended hospital with tonsillitis, which it did not mention.

Causal attribution. The patient's account and Fortune's review of other records.

  • fortune.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'However, none of these details were accurate, according to the patient and several other medical records reviewed by Fortune.'; 'The record appeared around the same time he had attended the hospital for a severe case of tonsillitis. However, the record in question made no mention of tonsillitis.'
Reported The patient received a letter inviting him to diabetic eye screening although he had never been diagnosed with diabetes; he briefly worried he had been diagnosed without knowing, and the next day a nurse at a routine blood test questioned the diagnosis and showed him AI-generated summaries in his notes.

Causal attribution. The patient's account to Fortune.

  • fortune.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'receiving a letter inviting him to a diabetic eye screening'; 'He had never been diagnosed with diabetes or shown any signs of the condition.'; 'briefly worried that he had been unknowingly diagnosed with the condition, before concluding the letter must just be an admin error'; 'a nurse questioned the diagnosis'; '“He showed me the notes on the system, and they were AI-generated summaries.'
Reported Fortune writes that the screening invitation was presumably based on the erroneous AI-generated summary.

Causal attribution. Fortune's hedged inference linking the summary to the invitation; no source shows how the invitation was generated.

  • fortune.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'the fictitious AI-generated record appears to have had downstream consequences, with the patient’s invitation to attend a diabetic eye screening appointment presumedly based on the erroneous summary.'
Reported An NHS representative told Fortune the practice makes limited use of supervised AI, that Anima only suggests codes and a summary to a human reviewer, and that the error was a one-off human error: a medical summariser had spotted the mistake but, distracted, saved the original version rather than the updated one.

Causal attribution. Counterevidence and context: the NHS account places the failure in human review of the AI-generated summary.

  • fortune.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'employs a “limited use of supervised AI” and the error was a “one-off case of human error.”'; 'a medical summariser had initially spotted the mistake in the patient’s record but had been distracted and “inadvertently saved the original version rather than the updated version [they] had been working on.”'; 'Anima only suggests codes and a summary to a human reviewer in order to improve safety and efficiency.'
Reported Anima Health did not respond to Fortune's questions.

Causal attribution. Fortune's statement about the vendor's response.

  • fortune.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The company behind the technology, Anima Health, did not respond to Fortune’s questions about the issue.'

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-10-26 (full article); no translation. Applies to s1.

Event countries: United Kingdom. Affected-person countries: United Kingdom. Court countries: Unknown.

Fortune describes the patient as London-based and his record as held by an NHS GP practice; the NHS representative speaks for the practice. The practice's exact location is not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-26: Published as an AI-generated false record about a patient: Fortune reports, from records it reviewed and the patient's account, that a summary generated by Anima's Annie stated diabetes and heart disease he did not have and that a diabetic eye-screening invitation presumably followed. The NHS account of a human review error is preserved.

People described

An adult patient of a GP practice in London, described as a healthy man in his mid-20s

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person: the patient whose GP record carried the false AI-generated summary and who received the screening invitation.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#primary-care#medical-record#ai-summary#screening-invitation#nhs

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). London: AI-generated GP record summary falsely listed diabetes, and a healthy patient was invited to diabetic eye screening, Fortune reports. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-london-gp-practice-ai-generated-record-summary-falsely-listed-diabetes-patient-invited-to-diabetic-eye-screening

BibTeX

@misc{2025_london_gp_practice_ai_generated_record_summary_falsely_listed_diabetes_patient_invited_to_diabetic_eye_screening,
  title = {London: AI-generated GP record summary falsely listed diabetes, and a healthy patient was invited to diabetic eye screening, Fortune reports},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-london-gp-practice-ai-generated-record-summary-falsely-listed-diabetes-patient-invited-to-diabetic-eye-screening}
}

Related cases

Low Otter Notetaker

United States: seven people who say they had no Otter account allege its AI Notetaker recorded calls without consent; a judge let core privacy claims proceed

Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.

Medium ChatGPT

Victorian child protection worker put a family's information into ChatGPT to draft a court report that minimised risk to the child, regulator finds

Victoria's Information Commissioner (OVIC) found in a report published on 24 September 2024 that a child protection worker at the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) used ChatGPT in or around September 2023 to draft a Protection Application Report submitted to the Children's Court about a young child. On the balance of probabilities, OVIC found the worker entered personal information, including names, about the child, mother, father and carer, disclosing it to OpenAI; the worker admitted using ChatGPT but denied entering personal information. OVIC found generated content in the report described a doll that the father had reportedly used for sexual purposes as a parental strength ('age-appropriate toys'), downplaying the risk to the child, although the court's and the department's decisions did not change. The report was withdrawn and replaced, and the mother, father and carer described anxiety when told of the disclosure. OVIC found serious breaches of two privacy principles and issued a compliance notice requiring DFFH to ban and block generative AI text tools for child protection staff until November 2026; DFFH accepted the breach findings.

Low Claude

First-person forum account: a Claude subscriber with chronic depression who travels between countries on their therapists' advice says an automated fraud check flagged their changing log-in locations, put the paid account on hold and suspended it, cutting off a chatbot they relied on for emotional support and triggering a panic attack and a depressive episode

In a public post to r/depression on 29 September 2026, a Claude subscriber writes that they live with severe chronic depression and, on their therapists' advice, travel constantly, so their log-in locations shift between the Netherlands, Singapore and transit countries. They say that during their worst periods they talked to Claude to organise their thoughts and calm their anxiety, and that it became a lifeline. 'A few days ago', they write, Anthropic's automated fraud system flagged the location changes as suspicious activity; their paid subscription was put on a permanent hold and the account suspended with no human warning or manual review, their card was blacklisted, and support had not answered their emails. Realising they were locked out 'triggered a massive panic attack' and pushed them back into a severe depressive episode. Anthropic's help centre says it may ban accounts for reasons including account creation from an unsupported location and that an organisation paused for unusual activity can request a review; it does not describe the check the poster reports, and whether that check uses AI is not known. The account is uncorroborated.

Low AI Andi

Oxfordshire GP practice patients say its AI phone triage left them without help or misread why they called; practice reports mostly positive feedback

Newbury Street Practice, a GP surgery in Wantage, Oxfordshire, began routing every incoming call through the AI Andi triage system in July 2026. In a Local Democracy Reporting Service article published by BBC News on 14 October 2026, one patient says she waited in the phone queue for 20 minutes before the AI system decided it could not help her, and described the system as a wall that puts patients off contacting the practice. Another patient says she was left frustrated when the system took her call to be about pregnancy. A practice spokesperson said most feedback had been positive (79% in the first month), that some patients less confident with technology had found the change harder, and that patients are now offered the option of speaking to a human receptionist. The local MP said residents had contacted him about the system.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents