Do patients need to consent before AI documents their visit?

Separate four decisions that are often compressed into one question: consent to care, notice or consent for audio recording, the lawful basis for processing visit data, and clinician approval of the resulting note. The answer depends on the jurisdiction, the institution's policy, the purpose of capture, and the data flow. In Indonesia, Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (UU PDP) governs personal-data processing and data-subject rights; the institution's legal and privacy teams must determine the basis, notice, and consent required for the specific workflow.

A governed recording workflow should not hide active audio capture. Before capture starts, the patient should receive the notice required for that setting, and the interface should show a clear active-recording state with an accessible pause or stop control. Where consent or another authorization must be recorded, the audit trail should preserve its scope and time together with capture start and stop events, the note version, clinician edits, approval, and any export or approved writeback event. These controls create evidence that the workflow followed the institution's rule; they do not replace the legal assessment.

Micromeet AI Scribe / V2N is in early validation, so each institution must verify its recording, export, or writeback path before use. The standard product stance treats live consultation audio as an ephemeral transcription input, while retained transcripts, proposed notes, clinician edits, consent events, export acknowledgements, and audit records remain subject to institution configuration and agreed data-processing terms. This is governed healthcare AI: the AI prepares the note; the clinician corrects and approves it before it enters the medical-record workflow.