Epic Systems, the EHR platform used by nearly half of U.S. hospitals, is reportedly preparing to launch its own AI-powered ambient scribe. If confirmed, this move would position Epic in direct competition with established vendors in the space, including Abridge, Nuance, Ambience, Suki, and Nabla.

Ambient scribe technology has gained traction for its ability to automatically capture and structure physician–patient encounters, reducing documentation burden and enabling more face-to-face clinical time. Independent vendors have spent years optimizing these tools for accuracy, workflow fit, and specialty-specific requirements.

Epic’s potential entry follows a pattern common among large platform providers:

1. Partner with or integrate third-party tools.
2. Gather adoption and workflow insights.
3. Develop an in-house alternative and distribute it across the existing customer base, often bundled within current contracts.

For hospital CIOs and CMIOs, an Epic-built ambient scribe could simplify vendor management, contract negotiations, and integration processes by consolidating technology under a single provider. It could also streamline security reviews and reduce interoperability challenges.

Implications for Hospital–ASC Joint Ventures‍

Many ASCs in joint ventures with hospitals do not operate directly on Epic. Instead, they run on ASC-focused systems such as SIS, HST Pathways, or Amkai, while the hospital partner operates Epic on the inpatient side.

Even in these cases, hospital-driven technology decisions can influence the ASC:

• Clinical documentation standards set by the hospital partner often extend into JV governance and can dictate preferred vendor lists.
• If the hospital adopts Epic’s ambient scribe enterprise-wide, the JV may face pressure to align, even if the ASC’s native platform requires custom integration or a parallel deployment.
• The result can be reduced flexibility for the ASC to choose solutions purpose-built for outpatient surgical throughput, pre-op readiness, and case turnover.

Operational Risks for ASCs

• Workflow misalignment if an inpatient-oriented tool is applied to high-volume, short-case surgical settings.
• Integration complexity and potential cost to bridge Epic-native tools into SIS or HST environments.
• Innovation slowdown if vendor choice is restricted to the hospital’s enterprise EHR roadmap.

Strategic Considerations for JV Leadership

• Conduct a side-by-side evaluation of Epic’s ambient scribe against ASC-optimized solutions.
• Review JV governance documents and technology procurement processes to confirm whether the ASC can maintain platform autonomy.
• Assess integration feasibility and costs for connecting Epic-native tools to SIS or HST Pathways without disrupting OR throughput.
• Factor in the impact on ASC performance metrics such as case documentation turnaround, denial prevention, and staff utilization.

Strategic Considerations for JV Leadership‍

Hospital–ASC JV boards and operations teams should evaluate:

• Comparative performance of the EHR-native tool versus leading third-party solutions.
• Contractual carve-outs or exceptions that allow ASCs to implement workflow-specific technology.
• Long-term implications for innovation cycles and the ability to rapidly adopt niche tools that drive ASC performance metrics such as OR turnover, case readiness, and denial reduction.

If ambient scribes are entering the EHR-native portfolio, similar expansion into AI-driven care coordination, proprietary clinical decision support, and automated coding/denial-prevention tools is likely. For JVs, these developments could further concentrate technology control within the hospital’s EHR vendor, underscoring the importance of proactive governance over technology adoption strategies.