Is it legal to use AI to document healthcare? Can any tool be used, and who is responsible for the quality of the patient record? "Normen" has now released guidelines that answer precisely these questions.

An increasing number of healthcare professionals are using AI tools to draft medical records. This has raised a series of practical questions that many have been awaiting answers to – regarding privacy, responsibility, and quality. In June 2026, launched Standards, The Norwegian health sector's own industry standard for information security and privacy, advice, and guidance for the safe and responsible use of what they call «speech-to-draft.».

According to the Standard, interest in clear advice in this area has been greater than they have seen before. For you, who document patient conversations every day, this is more relevant than it might sound – because it sets some framework for how the tools you use should function.

What do the new recommendations say?

The recommendations are summarized in a fact sheet, Safe Use of AI in Health Care Documentation (Speech-to-Draft). With «speech-to-draft,» we mean tools for speech-to-text, speech-to-note, or speech-to-summary – solutions that listen to a consultation and create a draft that healthcare professionals then quality assure.

The fact sheet provides advice on privacy, information security, responsibility, and quality assurance, among other things, and addresses issues of legality, tool selection, and responsibility when using AI. The starting point is clear: such tools can save time and provide more efficient documentation in a busy everyday life, but AI-generated drafts can simultaneously contain errors, omissions, or misunderstandings. The aim of the guidance is not to slow down development, but to facilitate the adoption of new technology without compromising patient safety, privacy, or quality.

The responsibility still lies with the healthcare personnel

The most important message for individuals is that responsibility is not shifted. Director of Health Cathrine M. Lofthus has emphasized that healthcare personnel are responsible for the content of the medical record and must ensure that AI-generated text is correct before it is saved. This is entirely in line with Health Personnel Act § 40The journal shall be kept in accordance with good professional practice and contain relevant and necessary information, regardless of the tool used in the process.

In other words, AI can write a draft, but humans approve. The national guidelines reinforce this principle rather than weaken it – and that is an important clarification at a time when technology is moving rapidly.

What does this mean for you as a documentarian?

For the individual clinician, this is good news. It provides a clearer framework for adopting tools that actually simplify documentation work, while also establishing what a responsible tool should ensure: that personal data is handled securely, that responsibility remains with the practitioner, and that the draft is always quality-assured before it becomes part of the patient record.

The advice also points to a noteworthy point: the use of AI in record-keeping can involve more extensive processing of personal data than traditional record-keeping, where only what the practitioner considers relevant and necessary is recorded. This makes the privacy architecture of the tool – how data is processed and where – something that should be examined more closely. We have previously written about how Norwegian e-health is moving from pilot to everyday use, and this guide is a natural part of that development: from trying out technology to safely adopting it.

This is how Medivox fits into the picture

Medivox is built around the same principles that the guidance emphasizes. The tool listens to the consultation and delivers a structured draft of the journal entry in Norwegian – but it is always you who reviews, corrects, and approves before anything is saved. You own the journal and make the final assessment.

Regarding privacy, the architecture is built precisely for the concern the advice raises: personal data is pseudonymized before further processing, and all data processing takes place in Norwegian data centers. And because you build your own templates, you get a draft that suits your practice – without changing who is responsible. We believe this type of national framework is good for the entire sector: when it becomes clearer what secure use entails, it also becomes easier for healthcare professionals to choose solutions built around the same requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it legal to use AI to document healthcare?
Yes, when done responsibly. The Norwegian Directorate of Health and the National Institute of Public Health have launched guidelines for safe and responsible use of speech-to-text, with an emphasis on privacy, information security, accountability, and quality assurance.

Who is responsible for what is in the medical record?
Healthcare personnel. AI can create a draft, but the person providing healthcare must ensure that the text is correct before it is saved, in accordance with section 40 of the Health Personnel Act.

What is «speech-to-draft»?
A collective term for tools such as speech-to-text, speech-to-notes, or speech-to-summary, which create a draft based on the consultation that healthcare personnel then quality assure.

What should one look for in such a tool?
According to the guide, one should consider privacy, information security, responsibility, and quality assurance – including how personal data is processed and where.

Does Medivox comply with the principles in the guide?
Medivox is built around the same principles: Norwegian medical language, pseudonymization before further processing, data processing in Norwegian data centers, and that the responsibility and final assessment remain with the healthcare provider.

Use Medivox for free – Get started completely free

Do you want to understand how a secure, Norwegian documentation tool works in practice? Contact us – so we will go through how Medivox safeguards both privacy and professional responsibility.

Sources: