Doxiverse Staff - August 2026
Mount Sinai Medical Center in Florida has implemented Epic’s Chart with Art system for nursing documentation, Epic announced on August 13. According to the company, the technology converts natural conversations at the bedside into clinical documentation and can process conversations in English and Spanish.
Why it matters: Ambient documentation is moving beyond physician office visits into inpatient nursing workflows. Hospitals considering similar systems will need evidence about documentation accuracy, required review, patient consent, privacy and whether the technology meaningfully reduces nursing workload.
What Happened
Epic said nurses at Mount Sinai Medical Center are using Chart with Art to document bedside conversations. The company describes the system as operating in the background while nurses communicate with patients and families.
The technology supports English and Spanish. Epic said this was relevant to Mount Sinai because more than 30% of the medical center’s patients speak Spanish as their primary language. The source did not explain how the system handles conversations involving both languages, clinical interpreters, multiple speakers or language varieties.
Epic characterized Mount Sinai’s nurses as the first in Florida to adopt Chart with Art. That statement should be treated as the vendor’s characterization because the announcement did not provide an independent source or methodology establishing the claim.
The announcement included a statement from Mount Sinai Chief Nursing Officer Wendy Stuart that the hospital implemented the technology to give nurses more time to be present with patients. However, Epic did not publish quantitative results showing how much time the system saves or whether it reduces documentation performed outside scheduled hours.
What This Means for Hospitals and Nurses
The deployment represents a different use case from ambient documentation during physician office visits. Bedside nursing conversations may include assessments, medication discussions, patient education, care coordination and sensitive exchanges with family members. A system operating in this environment must distinguish clinically relevant information from ordinary conversation and place that information in the appropriate part of the medical record.
Hospital leaders evaluating similar technology should determine whether generated documentation requires nurse review and approval before entering the chart. They should also examine how corrections are tracked, how the system identifies speakers and how it performs in noisy rooms or conversations involving several people.
The announcement’s emphasis on English and Spanish support may be relevant to hospitals serving multilingual populations. Still, language availability alone does not establish equivalent accuracy across languages or clinical circumstances. Hospitals would need locally relevant validation before assuming comparable performance.
Nursing, informatics, compliance and patient-safety teams should participate in any evaluation. Useful implementation measures would include time spent documenting, correction frequency, missing or inaccurate information, nurse satisfaction, patient concerns and whether documentation changes affect downstream clinical decisions.
What’s Still Unsettled
This is a vendor-reported deployment announcement, not a peer-reviewed study or an independently evaluated implementation report. Epic did not provide the number of participating nurses, hospital units involved, implementation date, duration of use or scale of deployment.
The announcement also did not report documentation accuracy, correction rates, nursing time savings, effects on workload or patient outcomes. It did not describe the workflow for reviewing AI-generated content or specify whether documentation reaches the medical record automatically or only after human confirmation.
Other unanswered questions include how patients are informed that ambient technology is being used, whether explicit consent is obtained, how recordings or transcripts are handled and what safeguards apply to conversations involving family members. The source also did not provide information about purchasing terms, implementation costs or integration requirements.
Until Mount Sinai or Epic publishes implementation data, the announcement should be understood as evidence of a real-world deployment, not evidence that the system improves efficiency, documentation quality or patient care.
Sources
This article describes a vendor-reported healthcare technology deployment and is not clinical, legal or compliance advice. Organizations should independently evaluate documentation, privacy, consent and patient-safety requirements before implementation.