A wound care app changes how you chart. Instead of writing from memory at the end of the day, you capture, measure, and document at the point of care. That is faster, but it also means software is shaping what goes into the record. So the first job is to vet it.
Only about 4 in 10 practices using AI say it actually reduced their workload. Asking hard questions up front is how you avoid being in the other 6.
Why mobile changes the safety question
A desktop tool gets reviewed at a desk. A mobile tool gets used in a patient room, between visits, often with a patient waiting. Review habits get rushed. The safeguards need to hold up under that pressure, not just in a demo.
The five questions below come from Dr. Lucian Feraru, Chief Medical Officer. They apply to any AI scribe vendor, and they are worth running against any wound care charting app you consider.
The five questions, applied at the bedside
- Was it independently evaluated, and tested for hallucinations? Ask for the evaluation, not a claim about it. Check whether it used realistic conversations and who reviewed the notes.
- Who signs the note, and can I edit everything before I sign? On a phone, confirm you can review and change every section without hunting for it.
- How is patient data protected, and will you sign a BAA? Wound images are patient data too. Ask how photos and notes are handled, and get the BAA answer in writing.
- Does it work with the EMR I already use? A mobile app that creates a second place to chart adds work instead of removing it.
- Do I pay for seats, or only when it drafts a chart? Pricing models differ. Know which one you are signing up for before you roll it out to a team.
What a published evaluation looks like
Question one is the one most vendors dodge. For the AI scribe behind WoundScribe, a peer-reviewed evaluation used recorded and simulated conversations. No hallucinations were detected, and no notes were rated fair or poor.
The notes were held to two standards:
- Accuracy and completeness for the clinician
- No possible harm for the patient
Those are useful standards to borrow when you test any tool yourself. You can read the original write-up in Is AI safe in my notes?.
A simple one-visit trial
You do not need a full rollout to learn whether an app is safe and useful. Try it on a single visit:
- Capture the wound and document the encounter as you normally would.
- Read the drafted note line by line against what you saw and said.
- Edit anything that is off, then sign only when it matches your findings.
- Note how long the whole process took compared with your usual charting.
If the draft needed heavy correction, that is your answer. If it was accurate and complete, you have a real data point on time saved.
The rule that does not change
No matter how good the draft is, AI drafts. You decide. The clinician reviews and signs every note. An app that blurs that line, or makes review awkward on a small screen, is not a safe fit for clinical documentation.
Where to go next
If you want to see how these answers play out in a full workflow, start with the main website and try it on one visit. Start free, then judge it against your own five questions.