When a patient sends a message to a therapist or clinician, the reply needs to be accurate, clear, and caring. Artificial intelligence (AI) can help by preparing a draft response. But a draft is only a starting point: it may not understand the patient’s full situation, and a clinician must check it before sending.
A 2025 study examined this approach in a large hospital in the Netherlands. Over 16 weeks, 100 physicians from 14 specialties responded to 919 patient messages. For each message, they could start with an AI-written draft or write a reply from a blank page. The study looked at how often clinicians chose drafts, how much they changed them, and how long replies took (Bootsma-Robroeks et al., 2025).
Clinicians chose an AI draft for 58% of the messages. Among the replies that began with a draft, 43% kept at least some of its wording. This shows that clinicians were willing to try the tool, but they did not always use its suggestions in the same way. Some kept more of the draft; others changed most of it.
The study found no clear time saving. Replies that used some of the AI draft took about the same time as replies written from a blank page: around two and a half minutes. Reviewing and correcting a draft may take time, so generating text does not necessarily make the whole task faster.
For therapists, an AI draft may be useful for routine messages, such as confirming an appointment or explaining a general practice procedure. It may also help organize a response when a therapist is busy. This could leave more time for direct care—but the study did not show that these drafts saved time, so this benefit should not be assumed.
Therapy messages often involve personal feelings, relationships, and sensitive experiences. An AI-generated reply may sound warm but still miss important meaning, context, or changes in a client’s emotional state. It could also suggest wording that feels impersonal or does not fit the therapist’s approach. A draft should never replace a therapist’s assessment, especially when a client may be at risk or needs urgent support.
Therapists can use drafts as a starting point while keeping their own voice and clinical judgment. Before sending, they should check that the reply fits the client, responds to the actual concern, and does not promise more than the therapist can provide. If a message needs careful discussion, the therapist may decide that a session or phone call is more appropriate than a written reply.
There are also important responsibilities. Patients’ private information must be protected, and health services should explain how these tools are used and check them for errors or unfair differences in performance. Clinicians remain responsible for the messages they send, even when AI has helped write them.
This study provides an early look at AI-assisted patient communication in everyday care. The tool was used, but it did not yet show clear time savings. Future studies should examine whether it improves the clarity and quality of replies, how patients feel about receiving them, and whether it works safely for different people and types of messages.
Reference
Bootsma-Robroeks, C. M. H. H. T., Workum, J. D., Schuit, S. C. E., Hoekman, A., Mehri, T., Doornberg, J. N., van der Laan, T. P., & Schoonbeek, R. C. (2025). AI-generated draft replies to patient messages: Exploring effects of implementation. Frontiers in Digital Health, 7, Article 1588143. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1588143