Reported by ABC News (Australia): an AI scribe used at a urology appointment inserted a false claim that the patient took psychedelic mushrooms into her record; the error reached her GP in a post-operative letter and was corrected only after she complained

What happened (patient's account to ABC News). At her first appointment with a urologist the patient was asked whether she consented to the appointment being transcribed by AI and agreed, saying she did not want to be 'that annoying patient'. After her kidney-stone surgery in March 2026 she read the post-operative letter her specialist had sent to her GP. It stated that she micro-dosed mushrooms and that this could be the reason for prior bleeding around the kidneys. She told ABC she was 'gobsmacked and in tears' and had never taken mushrooms. Because she was receiving workers' compensation, she feared a record of illegal drug use could affect her case, and she said the letter showed she was not getting the level of care she hoped for.

Response. After her complaint the urologist wrote an apology: 'Please be assured that we take the accuracy of our documentation very seriously, and we are truly sorry that this occurred.' The doctor said she had not been able to determine how the claim about mushrooms came to be included, but that it appeared to be an error during the 'dictation or transcription process'; she corrected the correspondence and said she would review how AI was used in her practice. She did not respond to ABC's questions about what changes had been made since.

Context in the report. AHPRA said clinicians must always check all AI-scribe output; the RACGP estimated last year that 40 per cent of GPs regularly use scribes; a Digital Rights Watch report cited other scribe errors (wrong breast recorded in a cancer diagnosis; a false epilepsy entry) and inconsistent consent practices; the TGA said no AI scribe has gone through its regulation process because transcription-only tools are exempt. Those items are context, not part of this case.

Limits. Single source. The scribe product, the clinic and the city are not named. The doctor's letter attributes the error to dictation or transcription, so whether the AI scribe or a human step introduced the claim is the doctor's characterisation, not an established fact; the patient's account is that the appointment was AI-transcribed and she had said nothing about mushrooms.

The patient reports distress ('gobsmacked and in tears') and fear for her workers' compensation case after a false illegal-drug claim entered her medical record and was sent to her GP; the record was corrected after her complaint. The false entry is attributed by the patient to the AI scribe and by the doctor to an error in the dictation or transcription process.

Patient complaint to the urologist; written apology; correspondence corrected; the doctor said she would review her use of AI. No regulator complaint, lawsuit or product action is reported. The TGA told ABC it had been reviewing AI scribes for a year and would act on breaches; that review is not specific to this case.