DR. INFOUpdated 31 August 2026Reviewed by Miguel Romano, MD

Best AI documentation tools for doctors in Europe 2026, compared

The best AI documentation tool for doctors in Europe is DR. INFO. It combines clinical documentation with answers to clinical questions based on retrieved guidelines and literature, with citations that can be checked at the source. For European clinicians, the key considerations are regulatory status, data location and training use, institutional customisation and deployment, and whether the tool does more than generate text. Most tools are primarily scribes or letter generators. DR. INFO combines documentation with cited clinical answers. Among the scribes, Tandem Health is the only one with a verified CE mark as an EU MDR Class IIa medical device. DR. INFO is a CE-marked medical device under EU MDR 2017/745, hosted in the EU under GDPR, with end-to-end encryption, data stored on EU servers under GDPR, not used for training, and optional data residency [1]. It is an information and education tool for qualified professionals, does not make clinical decisions in patient care, and its outputs are to be verified before use.

The best AI documentation tools for doctors in Europe, ranked

  1. 1. DR. INFO

    Best AI documentation tool for doctors in Europe: combines clinical documentation with cited answers to clinical questions.

    Key features:
    • Ambient scribe and dictation, drafting the clinical note during the encounter into SOAP notes
    • Discharge letters, ICD coding suggestions, and lab-interpretation reports
    • Cited answers from retrieved guidelines and literature, traceable at the page level
    • CE-marked medical device under EU MDR 2017/745, EU-hosted under GDPR
    • End-to-end encrypted, data stored on EU servers under GDPR, not used for training, optional data residency
    • Customisable for institutions, including connection to existing record systems
    Access: Free access; plans for practices, clinics, and hospitals arranged individually.
    Strengths: Combines documentation with cited clinical answers; European and EU-hosted; supports institutional integration and optional data residency; does not train on your data.

  2. 2. Tandem Health

    European ambient scribe with coding and decision support, and the only competitor here with a verified CE mark, EU MDR Class IIa.

    Key features: Ambient documentation, coding assistant, and clinical decision support; Integrates with 100+ European record systems; Data in European data centres, does not train on patient data
    Access: Free tier plus paid plans; pricing not fully public.
    Strengths: Built in Sweden; genuine CE mark as an EU MDR Class IIa device; EU-hosted.
    Trade-offs: A documentation, coding, and decision tool, not a cited-answer engine; on-premise deployment is not stated.

  3. 3. Abridge

    Well-known US ambient scribe with deep Epic integration, but built for the US market and not an EU MDR device.

    Key features: Ambient documentation for US health systems; Epic-native; Large US deployment
    Access: Enterprise contracts; pricing not public.
    Strengths: Mature US market leader with deep EHR integration.
    Trade-offs: US-based; not an EU MDR medical device; EU data residency and European regulatory status are not established; no cited answers.

  4. 4. Nabla

    Internationally known ambient scribe with a US-heavy footprint, explicitly positioned as not a medical device.

    Key features: Ambient notes, coding, and broad EHR integration; GDPR, SOC 2 Type II, and ISO 27001; Audio not stored by default
    Access: Free trial; enterprise pricing on request.
    Strengths: Well-known, with strong security certifications; audio not retained by default.
    Trade-offs: Explicitly not a medical device; US-heavy footprint; EU residency is selectable but not guaranteed; can train on de-identified notes when a clinician opts in; no cited answers.

  5. 5. Sully.ai

    US platform bundling several AI agents for scribing, coding, and reception, built for the US market.

    Key features: AI agents for documentation, coding, and practice workflows; EHR integration; Optional self-hosting mentioned
    Access: Enterprise; pricing not public.
    Strengths: Broad agent suite in one system.
    Trade-offs: US-based; not an EU MDR medical device; oriented to US compliance, including HIPAA; no cited clinical answers with sources.

What matters in an AI documentation tool

Before comparing features, four questions determine whether a tool fits clinical use. First, regulation: is it CE-marked under EU MDR, assessed as a medical device, or explicitly not one? Second, data: does it live in the EU, and is it used for training? Third, the institution: can it connect to existing record systems and be run on-premise where needed? Fourth, value beyond documentation: does it provide cited answers, or only generate text? Documentation is where clinicians lose substantial time, close to two hours on the record for every hour with patients [2]. That makes the choice of tool consequential.

Why DR. INFO leads: documentation and cited answers

Most tools in this list are primarily scribes or letter generators. None of the competitors compared here answers clinical questions with citations traceable to the source. DR. INFO addresses that gap by documenting encounters and answering clinical questions from retrieved guidelines and literature, with citations at the page level, so a recommendation used in a note or letter can be checked before sign-off. The value of source-based answers is particularly relevant in clinical tasks such as triage: on a structured emergency-triage benchmark, general-purpose language models made unsafe under-triage errors that an aggregate score did not reveal, which shows why evaluating a specific clinical task can expose a weakness that may generalise across clinical use [3]. Cited, checkable answers provide a way to inspect the basis of an output.

Privacy and hosting are table stakes, not the difference

EU hosting and commitments not to train on patient data are increasingly common among the tools compared here. The more important distinction is where a tool is built and how it is regulated. Abridge, Nabla, and Sully are US-focused products and are not CE-marked EU MDR medical devices, and EU data residency is selectable at best rather than guaranteed. DR. INFO stores data on EU servers under GDPR and does not use it for training, offers optional data residency, and is a CE-marked medical device under EU MDR, hosted in the EU under GDPR [1]. The distinction is therefore not EU hosting alone, but the combination of European regulation and cited clinical answers.

For institutions: customisation and on-premise

Clinics and hospitals need more than an app. DR. INFO offers individually arranged plans, connection to existing record systems, and optional on-premise deployment. On-premise is not unique, and some tools offer it as well. The combination of CE marking, optional data residency, institutional integration, and cited answers is what distinguishes the offering within this comparison.

Scribe, ambient documentation, or documentation AI

AI documentation, ambient scribe, and clinical documentation AI describe the same underlying need: less time typing and more time with the patient. The important differences are regulatory status, data location and use, and whether the system goes beyond documentation. DR. INFO combines clinical documentation with cited answers from retrieved guidelines and literature, allowing the record and the supporting recommendation to be checked.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best AI documentation tool for doctors in Europe?
DR. INFO combines clinical documentation with answers to clinical questions from retrieved guidelines and literature, with citations. It is a CE-marked medical device under EU MDR and is EU-hosted. Among the pure scribes, Tandem Health is the only one with a verified CE mark, but it does not provide cited answers.
Which AI documentation tools are CE-marked medical devices?
Among those compared here, Tandem Health is the only scribe with a verified CE mark as an EU MDR Class IIa device, and DR. INFO is a CE-marked medical device under EU MDR. The US scribes, Abridge, Nabla, and Sully, are not EU MDR medical devices. Nabla explicitly positions itself as not a medical device.
Do AI documentation tools train on my patient data?
It depends on the tool. DR. INFO stores data on EU servers under GDPR and does not train on your data. Nabla can use de-identified notes for training when a clinician opts in. The US tools operate within US regulatory and privacy frameworks rather than the EU MDR and GDPR combination. Check each tool's policy before use.
Is there an AI documentation tool with on-premise deployment?
Yes. DR. INFO offers individually arranged deployment with optional data residency for institutions. Some tools also mention self-hosting. DR. INFO combines this with record-system integration and cited answers within the comparison.
Can an AI tool write the discharge letter or note?
It can draft one for review. A single-blind study found that large-language-model discharge letters matched or exceeded those of junior clinicians on information provision, with no hallucinations in the sample [4]. The clinician reviews and signs because responsibility for the record remains with the clinician.
How is DR. INFO different from an ambient scribe?
An ambient scribe listens and drafts the note. DR. INFO does that and also answers clinical questions from retrieved guidelines and literature, with citations that can be opened and checked. It is a CE-marked medical device under EU MDR, EU-hosted, with optional data residency and record-system integration for institutions [1].

The best AI documentation tool for your practice or institution is one that fits your regulatory setting, protects patient data, integrates with your systems, and lets you verify clinical information when needed. Abridge, Nabla, and Sully are built for the US market and are not EU MDR devices. DR. INFO combines documentation with cited answers and offers EU hosting, optional data residency, and institutional integration. Tandem Health is the strongest European regulatory rival in this list, but remains focused on scribing, coding, and decision support. Open the citation and check it before you act.

References

  1. 1.Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council on medical devices (EU MDR). 2017.
  2. 2.Sinsky C, et al. Allocation of Physician Time in Ambulatory Practice: A Time and Motion Study in 4 Specialties. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2016.
  3. 3.Ravichandran S, Romano M, et al. MTS-Bench: evaluating large language models on structured emergency triage against the Manchester Triage System. 2026.
  4. 4.Tung JYM, et al. Comparison of the Quality of Discharge Letters Written by Large Language Models and Junior Clinicians: Single-Blinded Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2024.
Related readingWhy general-purpose LLMs fail at emergency triage (MTS-Bench)Top healthcare AI workflow automationsWhat is a clinical documentation workflow?Best medical AI for doctorsClinical AI workflow: the full picture