Scribeberry

Ambient capture, note generation, template matching, form population and the autonomous intake agents are all model output, with no services layer or platform business underneath.

The scribe itself is conventional draft and review, with the clinician checking the note before it is pushed or pasted into the record. One adjacent capability deserves separate scrutiny rather than assumption: ADA, the Autonomous Doctor Assistant, performs autonomous history taking with patients, and the platform also runs AI receptionists and autonomous booking and rebooking.

No confidence threshold, escalation path or abstention behaviour was located for any of those patient facing agents. Held at B because the documentation product, which is what this record grades, keeps a clear human gate, but a buyer adopting the wider platform is buying autonomy that has not been described.

The disclosure gap sits oddly against an otherwise exemplary compliance posture. Accuracy is claimed at 99.9 percent with no methodology, reference standard, denominator or date, which is the same unfalsifiable shape this index flags elsewhere, and no model card, named models or evaluation protocol was located. Template counts are also stated inconsistently, appearing as more than 2,000 on the vendor's own site and as more than 200 in a provincial procurement profile. A vendor this precise about encryption ciphers and data residency could be equally precise about model performance and is not.

The boundary half of this axis is answered about as completely as anywhere in the index and the enumeration half is not answered at all. On the boundary: audio is never permanently stored, encryption is stated by named cipher at rest and in transit, regional residency is enforced rather than offered as an option, and patient data is stated never to be used to train models without qualification, which is materially stronger than the third party models only wording used by some peers and closes a question most of this lane leaves open.

Together with an independent security attestation that is the reference position for the stewardship axis. On enumeration there is nothing. No model or model family is named, no foundation model provider is disclosed, no hosting provider is identified beyond the residency commitment, and no sub processor list was located in two passes. So a buyer knows content does not accumulate and does not train anything, and cannot name a single party that processes it.

Given how specific this vendor is willing to be elsewhere, the list is likely obtainable, and this is a refresh candidate. Ask for the sub processor list and the hosting provider covered by the residency commitment.

External standing rather than measured outcomes. Scribeberry is preferred vendor to the Canadian Rheumatology Association, a specialty society designation, and appears as a named vendor in a Supply Ontario procurement process for AI scribe solutions, which is provincial public procurement participation. Adoption is claimed at more than 30,000 providers.

Read the society designation with the same caution this index applies to the American Academy of Family Physicians arrangement with Empathia: a professional body selecting a vendor may be a commercial relationship rather than an evaluation, and no assessment criteria were located. No study, controlled comparison or published accuracy benchmark exists.

The most complete data handling disclosure located in this index, covering every commitment this axis measures rather than some of them. Audio is never permanently stored. Data is encrypted at rest with AES-256 and in transit with TLS 1.3, named ciphers rather than bank level phrasing. Regional residency is enforced rather than optional.

And patient data is never used to train AI models, stated without qualification, which is materially stronger than the third party models only wording used by Tali AI and answers the question Supanote and JotPsych leave open in the same market. Together with SOC 2 Type 2 certification this is the reference standard for the axis.

The broadest regulatory coverage claimed by any vendor in this index, spanning HIPAA, PIPEDA, PHIPA and Quebec Law 25, the last being a provincial privacy statute almost nobody names, and the vendor states directly that it signs business associate agreements.

Held at B rather than A because signing on request is the category norm and the agreement terms are not published for inspection before contracting; Doximity holds the A on this axis because coverage there is automatic and universal with no separate step.

SOC 2 Type 2 certification is named and typed, which is the top rung of this axis and something only a handful of vendors in this category can claim. It is stated consistently across the vendor's own pricing page and product materials rather than buried. Two additions would make it unimpeachable and are worth requesting at diligence: the audit date and the scope of the report.

No clearance claimed and none required for the documentation product, and no United States device pathway attaches to a note the clinician reviews and signs. The earlier assessment of this record flagged the autonomous intake agent as a direction of travel. The shipped feature set confirms it, and this is now the clearest patient facing case in the ambient scribe category.

ADA and the wider agent framework do not assist a clinician. They speak to patients directly, by inbound or outbound phone call, text or web chat, gathering history and completing forms before the clinician is involved. The vendor's own example opening line has the agent introduce itself as the doctor's assistant calling to gather medical history, and the questions are described as adapting and responding to the patient at the level of a second year resident. That is a clinical competence claim about an autonomous system talking to a patient with no clinician present.

The reasoning that keeps clinical decision support outside device regulation rests on a professional being able to review the basis of what the software produces. A patient is not a professional. Where the software is the party asking the questions, the patient reviews nothing, and the clinician reviews only the summary the agent chose to generate. The vendor does make the full transcript available for cross checking against the generated history, which is a real mitigation and worth crediting, but review after the fact is a different control from review before the output is relied on.

The clinical assistant also produces patient handouts and plain language explanations, which reach the patient directly.

Markets are Canada and the United States, with regional data residency. No United Kingdom or European Union presence was located. The software as a medical device treatment in those markets would attach to the intake agent even more clearly than to the scribe.

Language access is engineered for a real jurisdictional requirement rather than marketed as a feature: the product documents in both English and French, which is a practical necessity in bilingual provinces rather than a nice addition, and supports capture across 40 or more languages. Consent is also addressed directly, which almost nothing else in this index does, with published guidance for explaining the tool to patients and a reported refusal rate under 5 percent.

That guidance carries the same double edge noted for TheraPulse: it supplies clinicians with wording to secure agreement, though here the suggested language is at least factually anchored in the vendor's actual residency commitment. Held at B because no fairness statement, subgroup analysis or published performance breakdown by language or accent was located.

The band is reached through the Canadian regime, which gives an individual an enforceable right to challenge the accuracy of information held about them and have it corrected, with regulators behind both the federal and provincial routes, and the vendor operates inside that regime with regional residency enforced. So the recorded patient has a mechanism that does not depend on the vendor granting one.

What is striking on this record is the contrast between how precisely the company describes its data handling and how loosely it describes its performance. Encryption is stated by named cipher rather than as bank grade, residency is enforced rather than optional, audio is never permanently stored, and patient data is stated never to be used to train models without qualification. A vendor capable of that precision could be equally precise about model performance and is not.

Accuracy is claimed at 99.9 percent with no methodology, reference standard, denominator or date, which is the unfalsifiable shape this index flags throughout the lane, and template counts appear inconsistently as more than 2,000 on the vendor's own site and more than 200 in a provincial procurement profile. No warranty, indemnity or remediation commitment was located. Ask for the accuracy definition and sample, and reconcile the template figures.

Broad coverage that is unusually honest about which parts are deep. Native Smart Pull and Push integrations exist for Accuro, Oscar Pro and Jane App. For Epic, Cerner, athenahealth, MYLE, CHR and any other web based record, a Chrome extension pastes the note into the active field, and a desktop application covers anything else through keyboard shortcuts. Telehealth capture works across Zoom, Teams, Google Meet and Doxy.

The vendor states plainly which systems get true bidirectional integration and which get assisted paste, rather than listing every logo as an integration, and every integration is included in the published price with no per connection fee.

The clearest dual jurisdiction residency statement in this index: regional residency is ENFORCED, with Canadian data remaining in Canada and United States data in the United States, rather than offered as a configurable option a buyer must request. That matters specifically because, as the vendor itself notes, United States vendors running on major cloud platforms commonly store Canadian data in United States regions unless explicitly configured otherwise. Audio not being permanently stored reduces the exposed surface further. Available across mobile, desktop and browser extension.

Published, simple and inclusive. The Pro tier is 99 US dollars per provider per month for unlimited use, stated on the site rather than behind a quote, and the vendor is explicit that every integration is included with no per feature or per connection add ons, which is where competitors commonly recover margin. A free tier offers three days unlimited then roughly 20 uses a month, which is an evaluation allowance rather than a permanent free plan and is described as such by third parties. An enterprise tier at around 79 US dollars per user carries a five provider minimum, which rules out solo and two clinician practices and is worth knowing before comparing headline rates.

Among the broadest coverage in this index and specific about it. More than 90 specialties are claimed with named coverage across family medicine, internal medicine, psychiatry, obstetrics and gynaecology, surgery, paediatrics, nursing and dentistry, the last being a note structure almost no competitor attempts. Capture spans 40 or more languages with full English and French documentation.

Templates can be created by uploading a sample note for the system to copy, which suits specialties whose formats are idiosyncratic. Most distinctively it pre populates Canadian statutory paperwork from encounter data, including CRA Disability Tax Credit forms, provincial referral letters and insurance documents, which is the same jurisdiction specific administrative coverage that distinguishes Lyrebird Health in Australia and which no United States built scribe attempts.