Doctors are using AI software that does not meet minimum standards to record and transcribe patient meetings, according to a Sky News investigation.

NHS bosses have demanded GPs and hospitals stop using artificial intelligence software that could breach data protection rules and put patients at risk.

A warning sent out by NHS England this month came just weeks after the same body wrote to doctors about the benefits of using AI for notetaking – to allow them more time to concentrate on patients – using software known as Ambient Voice Technology, or “AVT”.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting will next week put AI at the heart of the reform plan to save the NHS in the 10-year plan for the health service in England.

But there is growing controversy around software that records, transcribes and summarises patient conversations using AI.

In April, NHS England wrote to doctors to sell the benefits of AVT and set out minimum national standards.

However, in a letter seen by Sky News, NHS bosses wrote to doctors to warn that unapproved software that breached minimum standards could harm patients.

The 9 June letter, from the national chief clinical information officer of NHS England, said: “We are now aware of a number of AVT solutions which, despite being non-compliant … are still being widely used in clinical practice.

“Several AVT suppliers are approaching NHS organisations … many of these vendors have not complied with basic NHS governance standards.

“Proceeding with non-compliant solutions risks clinical safety, data protection breaches, financial exposure, and fragmentation of broader NHS digital strategy.”

Sky News has previously revealed the danger of AI “hallucinations”, where the technology makes up answers then lies about them, which could prove dangerous in a healthcare setting.

NHS England sets minimum standards but does not tell NHS trusts and healthcare providers which software providers to use.

Sky News can now reveal there is growing pressure on NHS England and similar bodies to be more proactive.

Dr David Wrigley, deputy chair of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said: “Undoubtedly, as a GP myself and my 35,000 colleagues, we’ve got responsibilities here – but in such a rapidly developing market when we haven’t got the technical knowledge to look into this.

“We need that help and support from those who can check that the products are safe, check they’re secure, that they’re suitable for use in the consulting room, and NHS England should do that and help and support us.”

Dr Wrigley continued: “We’re absolutely in favour of tech and in favour of taking that forward to help NHS patients, help my colleagues in their surgeries.

“But it’s got to be done in a safe and secure way because otherwise we could have a free for all – and then data could be lost, it could be leaking out, and that just isn’t acceptable.

“So we are not dinosaurs, we’re very pro-AI, but it has to be a safe, secure way.”

The spectre of dozens of little-known but ambitious AI companies lobbying hospitals and surgeries to get their listening products installed worries some healthcare professionals.

There are huge profits to be made in this technological arms race, but the question being asked is whether hundreds of different NHS organisations can really be expected to sift out the sharks.

Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said the letter was “a really significant moment”.

He said it was right for the NHS to experiment, but that it needed to be clearer what technology does and does not work safely.

“My own view is that the government should help in terms of the procurement decisions that trusts make and should advise on which AI systems – as we do with other forms of technology that we use in medicine – which ones are safe,” Mr Taylor said.

“We’ll need [government] to do a bit more to guide the NHS in the best way to use this.”

When pressed whether in the short term that actually makes it sound like it could be quite dangerous, Mr Taylor replied: “What you’ve seen with ambient voice technology is that kind of ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ approach has got its limits.”

Earlier this year, the health secretary appeared to suggest unapproved technology was being used – but celebrated it as a sign doctors were enthusiastic for change.

Mr Streeting said: “I’ve heard anecdotally down the pub, genuinely down the pub, that some clinicians are getting ahead of the game and are already using ambient AI to kind of record notes and things, even where their practice or their trust haven’t yet caught up with them.

“Now, lots of issues there – not encouraging it – but it does tell me that contrary to this, ‘Oh, people don’t want to change, staff are very happy and they are really resistant to change’, it’s the opposite. People are crying out for this stuff.”

Read more from Sky News:
National investigation launched into maternity services
Every baby in the UK to receive DNA testing

Doctors who use AI that complies with national standards already say there are big benefits.

Anil Mehta, a doctor in the health secretary’s Ilford constituency, told Sky News he backed his MP’s drive for more AI technology in healthcare.

“I spend 30% of my week doing paperwork,” he said. “So I think once I’ve explained all of those features of what we’re doing, patients are extremely reassured. And I haven’t faced anybody that’s not wanted to have me do this.

He added: “(I) think that consultation with your doctor is extremely confidential, so that’s not changed at all.

“That remains confidential – so whether it’s a vulnerable adult, a vulnerable child, teenager, young child with a parent, I think the concept of that confidentiality remains.”

An NHS spokesperson said: “Ambient Voice Technology has the potential to transform care and improve efficiency and in April, the NHS issued guidance to support its use in a safe and secure way.

“We are working with NHS organisations and suppliers to ensure that all Ambient Voice Technology products used across the health service continue to be compliant with NHS standards on clinical safety and data security.”

Sir Keir Starmer said the UK is set to increase spending on defence, security and resilience to 5% of GDP by 2035 to meet an “era of radical uncertainty” – but without promising any additional cash.

The move – part of a new spending pledge by the NATO alliance – was panned as deceptive “smoke and mirrors” by critics, who pointed to the very real risk of escalating conflict between Iran, the US and Israel, as well as Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Sky News the timeline for the increase was “very slow” and warned Russia could attack a NATO country within five years.

“In my view, this is slow because we believe that starting from 2030, Putin can have significantly greater capabilities,” he told chief presenter Mark Austin.

The prime minister, Donald Trump and the other leaders of NATO’s 32 member states are expected to approve the investment goal when they meet at a summit in The Hague, which opens later today.

It replaces a previous target to spend 2% of GDP purely on defence.

The announcement will be celebrated as a win for the US president, who has been demanding his allies spend more on their own defences instead of relying on American firepower.

Overnight, he claimed to have secured another success, declaring that Iran and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire – just hours after Iran launched missiles against two American military bases in retaliation to a US decision to attack three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend.

Perhaps it will mean he will switch attention back to achieving a goal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, which will be another key focus of the gathering in the Dutch capital.

NATO planners have crunched the summit down to a short main session tomorrow, with a final communique much briefer than usual – all steps designed to reduce the chance of the US president leaving early.

He is already scheduled to arrive late and last this evening, provided he turns up.

There is huge nervousness about Mr Trump’s commitment to an alliance that has been the bedrock of European security since it was founded more than 75 years ago.

He is not a fan though, and has previously accused Europe and Canada of an overreliance on American firepower for their own security, calling for them to do more to defend themselves.

This pressure has arguably been a bigger motivator in prompting certain allies to agree to spend more on their militaries than the threat they say is posed by Russia, Iran, China and North Korea.

Spain’s position could create friction this week. The Spanish prime minister, while agreeing to the new investment goal, has said his country is not obliged to meet it.

The UK was also slow to say yes – a stance that was at odds with a defence review endorsed by Sir Keir that was centred around a “NATO-first” policy.

As well as agreeing to the defence and security investment goal, the British government is also publishing a new national security strategy on Tuesday that will highlight the importance of a wider definition of what constitutes security, including energy, food and borders.

There will also be a focus on a whole-of-society approach to resilience in an echo of the UK’s Cold War past.

It described the commitment to invest in defence, security and national resilience as an aligning of “national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since 1945”.

Sir Keir said: “We must navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest to deliver security for working people and keep them safe.

“That’s why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to NATO and drive greater investment in the nation’s wider security and resilience.”

The funding will be split, with 3.5% of GDP going on core defence and 1.5% on homeland security and national resilience – a new and so far less clearly defined criteria.

Progress on investment will be reviewed in 2029.

The defence goal is higher than the government’s current ambition to lift defence expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2034, from 2.3% currently.

The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027 – a figure that has been boosted by the addition of the whole of the budget for the intelligence agencies.

This level of intelligence spending had not previously been included and has drawn criticism from defence experts because it is not the same as tanks, artillery and troops.

Read more:
How much damage did US inflict on Iran?
UK could send further capabilities to Middle East, minister says

The government, in its statement, is now focusing on an even higher-sounding number, claiming that it will hit 4.1% of the new NATO target by 2027.

However, this is merely based on adding the new 1.5% spending goal for “resilience and security” to the already stated 2.6% defence spending pledge.

A Downing Street spokesperson was unable immediately to say how much of GDP is currently spent on whatever is included in the new resilience category.

It could include pre-announced investment in civil nuclear energy as well as infrastructure projects such as roads and railways.

For the UK, 1.5% of GDP is about £40bn – a significant chunk of national income.

Sir Ben Wallace, a former Conservative defence secretary, accused the government of “spin” over its spending pledge because it does not include any new money anytime soon.

“The threat to our country is real not spin,” he told Sky News.

“This government thinks it can use smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and Donald Trump. This is an insult to our troops who will see no significant new money. It fools no one.”

Two young bears escaped from their enclosure at a wildlife park in Devon – and devoured a week’s worth of honey.

In a tale straight out of Winnie The Pooh, Mish and Lucy immediately dashed for the food store during their hour of freedom at the Wildwood Trust site.

Visitors were “promptly escorted to a secure building” – but a spokesperson confirmed the peckish pair were not a danger to the public at any point.

“The bears were continuously monitored both on the ground and via CCTV until they calmly returned to their enclosure and fell asleep,” the statement added.

Police attended the scene “in line with standard protocol” – and an investigation has been launched into how the four-year-olds managed to escape in the first place.

“The exhibit is secure, and we are grateful to our staff and visitors for their cooperation, which helped us resolve the situation swiftly and safely,” the Wildwood Trust said.

Mish and Lucy were abandoned by their mother in a snowdrift in the Albanian mountains.

While several efforts were made to reintroduce them to the wild, conservationists soon concluded they could not survive on their own.

A fundraising campaign meant the siblings could be transported to Wildwood’s Kent park in 2020 – and after six months, they settled into their “forever home” in Devon.

Mish is a playful bear who enjoys splashing around in pools and swinging in hammocks, while Lucy “loves nothing more” than spending time with her brother and climbing trees.

They feast on kilos of berries, fruits, vegetables, seeds, fish and meat every day.

And honey… apparently.