Setting the Record Straight: Heidi Health AI Remains Safe for Clinical Use
Over the past few days, a blog article has circulated online with a highly provocative headline suggesting that Heidi Health’s AI could be used to steal patient identities. Understandably, this has raised questions across the health sector.
We want to be clear from the outset: we are comfortable that practices and clinicians can continue to safely use the Heidi AI scribe.
The claims implied by the headline are misleading and do not reflect real‑world clinical use.
What does the article actually describe?
The article in question outlines a theoretical security research exercise conducted in controlled, artificial conditions. In this exercise, researchers deliberately attempted to force the AI system to behave outside its intended purpose.
This type of testing is often referred to as a “jailbreak”. In simple terms, a jailbreak involves intentionally manipulating prompts or instructions in ways no normal user would, to see whether an AI system can be made to ignore its rules. It is a technique used by security researchers to explore worst‑case scenarios; not something that occurs in everyday clinical practice.
What the article does not show
Crucially, the article:
· Does not document or provide evidence of real‑world identity theft
· Does not involve real patients or real clinical settings
· Does not provide evidence of patient harm
· Does not describe misuse of Heidi Health by clinicians
No ethical clinician would ever undertake such an exercise in real life, and the article does not demonstrate or report any real‑world misuse of Heidi Health in clinical practice.
How is Heidi Health is used in general practices or EDs?
Heidi Health is an administrative documentation tool used in highly regulated healthcare environments. It supports clinicians by reducing the amount of time they need to spend typing during a consultation (as the AI tool ‘writes’ for them), thereby, allowing clinicians to listen to the information patients provide. This allows the clinician to be fully present in the moment and to fully listen to the information the patient is providing them with.
It does not replace clinical judgement or responsibility, and the clinician still has to go into the system afterwards to check the accuracy of the record.If the clinician (or the patient) asks Heidi for any advice, which is possible with some versions of the Heidi tools, it absolutely remains the role of the clinician to decide whether or not to use that advice. Heidi does not make clinical or treatment decisions.
Ongoing security reviews
Like all modern digital health technologies, Heidi Health is subject to ongoing security review, governance, and compliance requirements.
Health Accelerator’s position
Through our discussions with Heidi Health over the past 6 months, they have consistently demonstrated a high level of diligence and care when it comes to safety, privacy, and security.
Therefore, our position is clear: practices and clinicians can continue to safely and appropriately use the Heidi AI scribe as part of their clinical workflows.
We support rigorous security research and open discussion about AI safety. These conversations are important. However, they must be accurate, responsible, and proportionate, particularly where public trust in healthcare is concerned.
Sensational headlines should not be mistaken for real‑world risk!