If the computer is getting more of our attention than the patient, we have a problem. It is not a small annoyance. It is not just part of the job. It is pulling clinicians away from patients, draining attention from the exam room, and quietly chipping away at the quality of clinical education. We can debate workflow, efficiency, and EHR optimization all day long. But here is what I see as a longtime clinician and preceptor advocate: When a provider is focused on the computer, a student is learning from that too. They are learning what we normalize. They are watching how often we break eye contact. They are seeing how much of the visit is spent clicking, templating, and documenting instead of listening, explaining, and thinking out loud. They are seeing what modern practice has become, and too often, it does not look like the kind of patient care or teaching environment any of us would choose. That is why I think AI scribes deserve more attention, not because they are trendy, and not because they are perfect, but because they may help restore something we have been losing. Presence.

AI scribes are not the future of medicine. Clinicians are. Preceptors are. Clinical judgment is. Mentorship is. But if AI can take some of the clerical burden off clinicians, then maybe it can help us get back to the parts of practice that actually matter most. That is a conversation worth having. Let us be honest about what charting has become. Documentation is no longer just a record of the visit. It is a billing tool, a compliance exercise, a liability shield, a quality metric, and a data-entry marathon all rolled into one. The note has become so overloaded that it often competes with the patient for the clinician’s attention. And in a teaching practice, that cost gets multiplied. Precepting has always required balance. You are caring for the patient, supervising the student, protecting safety, keeping the day moving, and trying to teach in real time. That is hard enough on its own. Add endless documentation requirements, and something has to give. Usually, it is the teaching. Not because preceptors do not care. Not because students are not worth the time. But because the chart still has to get done, the inbox is filling up, the next patient is waiting, and the mental bandwidth is gone. That is the part people do not talk about enough.

Students do not only learn from formal teaching points. They learn by watching how we practice. They learn when we explain why one diagnosis is more likely than another. They learn when we talk through the risk-benefit decision behind a medication change. They learn when we pause and say, “Here’s what I’m thinking.” But those moments are often the first to disappear when a clinician is overloaded. If AI scribes can reduce the mechanical burden of documentation, that could matter far beyond efficiency. It could create more room for eye contact, more room for conversation, and more room for clinical reasoning to be spoken out loud. It could give preceptors more space to actually teach instead of simply survive the day. That matters for patients, and it matters for students. I am not suggesting AI scribes are some kind of miracle solution. They are not. They can make mistakes. They can miss nuance. They can generate notes that sound polished but still require careful review. No responsible clinician should treat an AI-generated note as something to blindly trust or sign. The clinician remains responsible. Always.

That is exactly why students also need to see this modeled correctly. If AI tools are going to become part of practice, then future clinicians need to learn how to use them with judgment, not laziness. They need to understand that convenience never replaces accountability. And yes, privacy and compliance matter too. Any technology handling protected health information deserves serious scrutiny. Practices should be asking hard questions before adopting these tools, not after. Patients deserve transparency, and clinicians deserve systems that protect trust, not just promise convenience. But even with those cautions, I think we should be careful not to dismiss the potential too quickly. Because what if this is one of the rare technologies that actually gives something meaningful back? What if it gives clinicians a little more mental space at the point of care? What if it helps a preceptor finish the day with enough energy left to debrief a student well? What if it allows a provider to look at the patient more and the screen less? That is not a minor improvement. That is a meaningful shift.

For years, we have accepted documentation overload as if it were inevitable. We have built clinical workflows around it, complained about it, adapted to it, and burned out under it. Meanwhile, students have been training inside that same environment, learning in systems where the computer often dominates the room. I do not think that is the standard we should settle for. Strong clinical education depends on strong preceptors. It depends on presence, attention, and the willingness to explain not just what we are doing, but why. No technology will replace that. But a tool that helps protect that kind of teaching has real value. As a clinician, I am less interested in whether AI sounds impressive and more interested in whether it helps us practice better. As someone who cares deeply about preceptors and the future of clinical education, I think the right question is simple: Does this tool create more room for human connection, better teaching, and better care? If it does, then it deserves a place in the conversation. Because the future of clinical education should not be built around who can chart the fastest. It should be built around who can think well, teach well, and care well. And right now, we need more of that, not less.

This essay is cited in the KevinMD record on the electronic health record.

Lynn McComas is the chief nursing officer at AMOpportunities and the founder of PreceptorLink. She is a recognized expert in precepting nurse practitioners and advanced practice provider students and has been matching preceptors since 2014. With over two decades in primary care, McComas has served as a coach, advisor, mentor, and preceptor for countless healthcare professionals, including NPs, nurses, and medical assistants. She co-founded a successful skills and procedures business and speaks nationwide on NP-related issues.

McComas is also a regular contributor on LinkedIn, KevinMD, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram @preceptorlink, X @LynnMcComas, and her blog, where she addresses the growing NP and PA professions and the urgent need for preceptor sites.

Her unique perspective, shaped by her business, clinical, and educational experiences, positions her as a key voice in tackling preceptor shortages. McComas is committed to driving change through a paradigm shift in NP education, reducing barriers, offering preceptor incentives, and advocating for reforms within the profession.