Technology is almost always on the short list of proposed solutions to address healthcare worker burnout. From electronic health records to clinical decision support and, more recently, generative AI, digital tools are frequently positioned as a way to reduce workload, improve efficiency, and restore time for patient care. Yet the outcomes have been inconsistent and highly dependent on organizational context and implementation.
National frameworks and empirical studies increasingly show that technology does not reliably improve well-being unless it is explicitly designed to reduce administrative burden and cognitive load embedded in daily work. The National Academy of Medicine’s National Plan for Health Workforce Well-Being emphasizes that digital tools alone do not improve workforce well-being unless they address workload and workflow inefficiencies at the system level (National Academy of Medicine [NAM], 2022). Similarly, a recent scoping review of AI-enabled workflow optimization found wide variation in outcomes across health systems, with benefits concentrated in settings where technology removed manual work rather than introduced new layers of oversight or complexity (Dave et al., 2026).
The growing body of evidence suggests the question is no longer whether technology can help reduce burnout, but under what conditions it does so reliably.
The Root Cause: Administrative and Cognitive Overload
Healthcare workers experience high rates of burnout, stress, and cognitive overload. Evidence increasingly points to work structure—rather than individual resilience or motivation—as a major contributor. Fragmented systems, duplicative documentation, manual tracking, and constant task switching introduce persistent cognitive strain that accumulates over time and erodes well-being (Dave et al., 2026).
A 2026 scoping review published in the International Journal of Medical Informatics synthesized 20 academic and grey-literature studies examining AI-driven workflow optimization and healthcare worker mental health. Across roles, care settings, and geographies, the review consistently identified administrative burden and disjointed workflows as contributors to burnout, anxiety, and cognitive overload. Burnout was the most frequently examined outcome—far outweighing job satisfaction or engagement—reinforcing that many of the drivers are structural and workflow-related, rather than at the individual-level (Dave et al., 2026).
These findings align with national guidance. The National Academy of Medicine identifies workload and administrative burden as priority system-level drivers of burnout that require organizational and policy interventions, rather than downstream wellness or resilience programs (NAM, 2022).
When AI Reduces Work, Burnout Lowers
The strongest evidence for AI’s impact on clinician well-being emerges when technology is used to remove work, rather than add tools, alerts, or parallel processes.
A 2025 study published in JAMIA Open evaluated the implementation of a generative AI digital scribe among pediatric generalists and subspecialists over a six-month pilot period (Pelletier et al., 2025). Compared with pre-implementation baselines, the study found:
- A 20.9% reduction in documentation time
- An average of 1.5 hours saved per provider per week
- Significant reductions across all components of cognitive task load, measured using the NASA Task Load Index
- A decrease in burnout prevalence from 54.9% to 33.3%
- Improved caregiver likelihood-to-recommend scores
Qualitative feedback reinforced the quantitative findings, with providers consistently reporting reduced cognitive burden, fewer interruptions, and greater mental bandwidth for patient care (Pelletier et al., 2025).
Similar patterns appear outside of AI-specific interventions. A quality-improvement initiative published in Curēus demonstrated that a targeted workflow redesign—removing a handwritten discharge form from physicians’ responsibilities and reallocating tasks to appropriate team members—resulted in reduced perceived workload and broad clinician support for continued operational redesign (Goebel et al., 2025). The intervention succeeded not through added incentives or perks, but by aligning work with clinical expertise and eliminating unnecessary administrative effort.
Real-world implementations focused on care coordination and follow-up orchestration show even larger administrative gains when AI is paired with workflow ownership and accountability. Across Inflo Health customer deployments, automation of follow-up identification, communication, tracking, and closure has reduced manual administrative tasks associated with follow-up management by up to 95%, shifting work from clinicians and care teams to coordinated, system-managed workflows. Rather than asking clinicians to track, chase, and document downstream actions, these workflows are designed to close the loop without reintroducing cognitive or clerical burden at the point of care.
Together, these studies suggest that clinician well-being improves when unnecessary clerical and coordination tasks are reduced or reassigned, allowing clinicians to focus on patient care (Goebel et al., 2025; Pelletier et al., 2025).
Why Perks Can’t Compensate for Broken Workflows
The scoping review by Dave and colleagues (2026) reinforces the point that healthcare leaders increasingly acknowledge: wellness initiatives and benefits alone are unlikely to be sufficient when underlying workload and cognitive burden remain unaddressed.
Across the reviewed literature, AI applications such as NLP-based documentation tools reduced documentation time by as much as 34%, and ambient digital scribes were associated with improved perceptions of work-life balance. In contrast, implementations that introduced additional monitoring requirements, poorly integrated tools, or parallel workflows often shifted—rather than reduced—administrative and cognitive burden (Dave et al., 2026).
This mirrors the conclusions of the National Academy of Medicine, which cautions that individual-level well-being programs cannot compensate for structurally excessive workloads or inefficient systems. Sustainable improvements in healthcare worker well-being require redesigning how work is organized and supported at the organizational level (NAM, 2022).
Put simply, perks may make work feel nicer, but workflow makes work sustainable.
The Catch: AI Must Be Designed for Humans
Importantly, none of this evidence suggests that AI adoption automatically improves well-being. Several studies included in the review highlight unintended consequences of poorly implemented AI, including increased oversight demands, data integration challenges, algorithmic bias, trust concerns, and new forms of cognitive burden introduced by misaligned tools (Dave et al., 2026).
To address these risks, the authors propose a Sociotechnical Systems Implementation (STSI) framework, emphasizing that AI must be embedded into workflows in ways that respect human roles, accountability, and cognitive limits. Technology that introduces additional monitoring or parallel processes without reducing underlying workload can shift or increase cognitive burden—even when the underlying algorithms are highly advanced (Dave et al., 2026).
This distinction matters. AI that surfaces more information without coordinating action risks amplifying the very burden it aims to reduce.
What This Means for Healthcare Leaders
Taken together, the evidence points to a clear takeaway: AI delivers the most reliable well-being benefits when it reduces documentation, administrative workload, and workflow fragmentation (Dave et al., 2026; Goebel et al., 2025; Pelletier et al., 2025; NAM, 2022).
For health systems grappling with workforce stability, satisfaction, and retention, the question is no longer whether AI can help, but where and how it is applied. AI paired with workflow-aligned, sociotechnical implementation can reduce documentation time and cognitive burden—key contributors to burnout. AI deployed without those guardrails risks becoming just another source of friction (Dave et al., 2026; NAM, 2022).
At Inflo Health, this evidence is why we focus not on detection alone, but on closing the loop—ensuring that insights reliably translate into coordinated action without pushing additional work back onto clinicians.
Burnout isn’t a wellness failure.
It’s a workflow failure.
And workflows can be fixed.
References
Dave, B., Martin, P., Singh David, S., Kumar, S., & Chakraborty, T. (2026). Enhancing healthcare worker mental health via artificial intelligence-driven work process improvements: A scoping review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 205, 106122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.106122
Goebel, J., Sidle, J., Aspiras, A., Fow, L., McCann-Pineo, M., & Li, T. (2025). Reducing physician burnout through workflow redesign: A quality-improvement initiative. Curēus, 17(6), e85799. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.85799
National Academy of Medicine. (2022). National plan for health workforce well-being. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26744
Pelletier, J. H., Watson, K., Michel, J., McGregor, R., & Rush, S. Z. (2025). Effect of a generative artificial intelligence digital scribe on pediatric provider documentation time, cognitive burden, and burnout. JAMIA Open, 8(4), ooaf068. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf068
Learn More
