Sanjana Nallapaneni, Christopher L. Crafton, Claudia I. Cabrera, Crystal Mosca, Kenneth Rodriguez, Sanjeet V. Rangarajan, Brian D'Anza
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Ambient artificial intelligence scribing, "ambient AI," is expanding across ambulatory specialties. Despite adoption, the impact on documentation efficiency, usability, and implications for otolaryngology remain poorly understood. This scoping review evaluates ambient AI utilization in multiple specialties in four areas (documentation efficiency, burnout, usability, workflow impact) to identify research gaps and apply findings from general ambulatory care to otolaryngology. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. ELIGIBILITY/CHARTING METHODS: A PRISMA-ScR compliant scoping review was conducted of studies published between January 2022 and July 2025, using search terms related to ambient AI scribe technology. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data were synthesized narratively and stratified into subcategories. RESULTS: We identified 164 articles and 12 met the inclusion criteria. Four studies included otolaryngology providers, but their experiences were not reported separately. Time-saved-per-note and after-hours reductions ranged from 0.2 to 2.1 and 1.6 to 15.2 min, respectively. Documentation usability scores post-implementation were high, ranging from 69.01 to 78.8/100. Perceived workflow efficiency score improved from 3.63/7 to 5.03/7. Validated instruments showed significant burnout reduction (Stanford PFI: 4.16-3.16/10, p = 0.005; NASA-TLX mental demand decreased 6.12 points, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Available literature on Ambient AI use in ambulatory settings does not define experiences of otolaryngologists but does report time savings, improved perceptions of usability, and reduced burnout. However, gaps must be addressed in reporting AI model performance and consistent outcome measures. Future studies must include special otolaryngology populations that have communication challenges. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.