MHRA Ambient Voice Technology 2026: When an AI Scribe Is a Medical Device in Great Britain

Ambient voice technology (AVT)—commonly known across clinical settings as an AI scribe, ambient clinical documentation software, or generative AI medical transcription—has become one of the fastest-adopted digital health tools across outpatient clinics, general practice, and hospital wards. By capturing consultation audio, transcribing dialogue, and drafting clinical notes, AVT tools promise to reduce administrative burden and give clinicians more time with patients.

For healthtech developers, NHS procurement teams, and regulatory affairs professionals, the commercial deployment of AI scribes in Great Britain was historically clouded by uncertainty. Earlier NHS communications and registry rules often treated ambient scribes as if they needed a Class I UKCA mark to be bought safely.

On 29 July 2026, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), working with NHS England, published dedicated guidance: Ambient voice technology-enabled products. A joint NHS England and MHRA letter the same day explains what that paper means for NHS organisations. The guidance does not change UK law. It is an interpretive reading of the UK Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/618) for this product class, and MHRA states that it is not a complete or definitive statement of the law.

The Core Direct Answer: Use in a clinic does not make an ambient voice technology product a medical device. An AVT product is a device in Great Britain only if its intended purpose—taken from labelling, instructions for use, and promotional materials, not from a “not for diagnosis” disclaimer—meets the UK MDR 2002 definition (diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease, and the related limbs).

Under the MHRA’s nine worked examples:

• Examples 1 to 5 are not medical devices when they are solely intended to transcribe a clinical conversation, summarise it for clinician review, format encounter information into structured data for confirmation, suggest clinical codes by matching terms that were explicitly said, or draft a letter or discharge summary from the encounter and existing record.
• Examples 6 to 9 are medical devices: an option for generated diagnostic or treatment “insights” even with a user-interface warning (Example 6); the same summary product marketed as guiding diagnosis and treatment planning and improving patient outcomes (Example 7); software that saves transcripts without required clinician review and autonomously places follow-up orders (Example 8); and suggested diagnoses from dictation or conversation plus record data where the clinician is intended to rely on the output (Example 9).

If the product qualifies as a general medical device in Great Britain, classification still uses the MDD rules in UK MDR 2002 Part II: Rule 10 (Class IIa) where the software allows “direct diagnosis”; otherwise Rule 12 (Class I). Class IIa and above need a UK Approved Body for UKCA. Northern Ireland follows EU MDR, including Rule 11, not this Great Britain paper.

Non-device status does not switch off NHS clinical-safety work. NHS England’s Version 3 ambient-scribing guidance tells deploying organisations in England to assign a Clinical Safety Officer, complete DCB0160 documentation, and complete a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). The companion manufacturer standard is DCB0129. Listing on the NHS AVT supplier registry is a procurement aid, not an MHRA qualification decision.

This guide is an operating manual for that paper: the nine-example tree, the Example 2 versus Example 7 claims fork, the Rule 10 versus Rule 12 classification question, the keep-versus-drop UKCA decision, the NHS overlay that survives non-device status, and the Great Britain / Northern Ireland / FDA comparison.

---

Status Summary: 2026 MHRA Ambient Voice Technology Framework

Dimension	Position in Great Britain (as of the 29 July 2026 paper)
Primary guidance	MHRA, Ambient voice technology-enabled products, published 29 July 2026.
Legal status	Interpretive guidance. MHRA: it is not a complete or definitive statement of the law and does not change the law.
Geography	Great Britain only (England, Wales, Scotland). Northern Ireland follows EU MDR 2017/745 under the Windsor Framework.
Examples 1–5	Transcript, summary, structured encounter data, explicit-term code matching, and draft letters/discharge summaries with clinician review and no medical purpose: not devices on the paper’s illustrations.
Example 7 claims fork	Identical summary software is a device if marketed as guiding diagnosis and treatment planning and improving patient outcomes.
Examples 6, 8, 9	Generated insights, autonomous saving/ordering without required clinician confirmation, and suggested diagnoses intended for reliance: devices.
If it is a GB device	MDD Annex IX via UK MDR 2002 Part II: Rule 10 Class IIa if it allows direct diagnosis; otherwise Rule 12 Class I.
Approved body	Required for Class IIa and above UKCA. Class I is manufacturer self-declaration plus MHRA registration.
NHS overlay (England)	Version 3 names Clinical Safety Officer, DCB0160, and DPIA for deploying organisations. DCB0129 is the manufacturer companion. Registry listing is not MHRA qualification.
DORS fee	Official government fee: £300 per year per Level 2 GMDN category (or Level 1 where no Level 2 exists), 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027, for registered devices only.
Safety governance	HSSIB hospital AVT investigation open; report expected summer 2027. RCP published a 31 July 2026 concern note.

---

What Did MHRA and NHS England Actually Publish on 29 July 2026?

On 29 July 2026, MHRA and NHS England published a coordinated package:

1. MHRA guidance: Ambient voice technology-enabled products — intended purpose, nine worked examples, and GB classification under UK MDR 2002.
2. MHRA news page: MHRA clarifies regulatory status of ambient voice technologies used in the NHS — the public headline, the sentence “This guidance does not change the law,” clinician responsibility for reviewing outputs, and board-assurance expectations.
3. Joint letter: Medical device regulation for ambient voice technology products (PRN02607_i), signed by Rob Thompson, NHS England Chief Digital, Data and Technology Officer, and Lawrence Tallon, MHRA Chief Executive.
4. NHS England Version 3: Guidance on the use of AI-enabled ambient scribing products in health and care settings — England only. It says it is not a determination of which products meet the device definition.
5. DMHT companion update: MHRA last updated Digital mental health technology: qualification and classification on 29 July 2026, including section 6 on when a DMHT does not qualify as SaMD. That paper is a same-day alignment, not a second set of AVT examples.

What changed, and what did not

The Royal College of Physicians records that earlier NHS registry practice expected suppliers to hold MHRA Class I registration to appear on the NHS-approved AVT self-certified supplier registry. The 29 July 2026 paper reverses that broad presumption for products that only transcribe, summarise, draft correspondence, or suggest codes for clinician review.

MHRA’s news page is explicit: “This guidance does not change the law.” UK MDR 2002 remains the statute. The paper is MHRA’s current reading of how that statute applies to AVT. In general, MHRA guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities unless they cite a specific statutory requirement.

To place this paper against the generic UK software framework, see Software and AI/ML Medical Device Regulation.

---

Does Use in a Clinic Make an Ambient Scribe a Medical Device?

No. MHRA’s AVT guidance states that use in a medical environment or context alone does not qualify a product as a medical device.

Setting	Intended purpose	GB result on the 29 July 2026 paper
Hospital, GP, or other clinical environment	Solely administrative documentation (transcript, summary, structured data, explicit-term coding, draft letters) with no medical claims	Not a medical device
Same clinical environment	Medical intended purpose (insights, diagnostic claims, autonomous clinical action, suggested diagnoses for reliance)	Medical device under UK MDR 2002

Under Regulation 2 of UK MDR 2002, a medical device is (among other things) software intended by the manufacturer to be used for human beings for:

• diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease;
• diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation of, or compensation for an injury or handicap;
• investigation, replacement or modification of the anatomy or of a physiological process; or
• control of conception.

MHRA’s AVT extract of that definition emphasises the disease, injury, and anatomy limbs that matter for scribes. The statute also includes control of conception; that limb is rarely the AVT issue.

Hospital ERP systems, appointment books, and word processors already operate in clinical buildings without becoming devices. MHRA’s analogue in the AVT paper is software that only reproduces a medical text as reference information, or that only summarises a meeting between clinical experts: the documentation can be clinically useful without itself having a medical intended purpose.

For how standalone software is distinguished from embedded device software and general health IT, see Why Software Classification Matters More Than Ever.

Do large language models automatically trigger device status?

No. MHRA says a product’s intended purpose is not specifically determined by the inclusion of any particular technology, including generative AI and foundation models.

That does not make hallucination irrelevant. MHRA expects manufacturers to design products so systems behave consistently with the stated purpose, and to mitigate known GenAI hazards (including hallucination) and reasonably foreseeable misuse by design first, then other protections, and only then warnings. User misuse and unintended outputs do not inherently create a new intended purpose, but they are a design and NHS clinical-safety problem.

To see how generative models are treated when they are inside a medical device, see Generative AI and Foundation Models in Medical Devices.

Why a “not for diagnosis” disclaimer does not decide qualification

Intended purpose for devices other than active implantables is defined in UK MDR 2002 Regulation 2(1) as:

the use to which the device is intended according to the data supplied by the manufacturer on the labelling, the instructions for use and/or the promotional materials.

MHRA then closes the disclaimer loophole in the AVT paper:

general disclaimers (for example ‘this product is not for diagnosis’) are not acceptable to demonstrate a product is not a medical device if medical claims are made or implied elsewhere in the product labelling or associated promotional material, including those made on websites, sales presentations, or online advertisements.

Warnings are the lowest level of risk reduction. If the product offers generated insights, diagnostic flags, or marketing that assigns a medical purpose, a footer disclaimer will not take it outside UK MDR 2002.

---

Recommended Reading

EU AI Act for Medical Devices: August 2028 Deadline and MDR Dual Compliance Strategy

Digital Health & AI EU MDR / IVDR2026-06-10 · 11 min read

Which of the Nine Official Examples Matches Your Product?

The centrepiece of the 29 July 2026 paper is nine illustrative examples in sections 5.1 and 5.2. They are not an exhaustive list. Map every feature and every claim, then reassess when either changes.

Path	MHRA examples	GB qualification on the paper
Section 5.1 administrative documentation	1 transcript; 2 summary; 3 structured encounter data; 4 explicit-term code matching; 5 draft letter/discharge summary	Not a medical device, if that is the whole intended purpose
Section 5.2 medical purpose	6 generated insights; 7 summary marketed for diagnosis/treatment/outcomes; 8 autonomous save and order; 9 suggested diagnoses for reliance	Medical device, then classify under Rules 10 and 12
NHS overlay	Applies on both paths for England deployments	DCB0129 / DCB0160 and DPIA are not switched off by non-device status

Non-device illustrations (section 5.1, Examples 1–5)

Example 1: Transcript of a clinical conversation

• MHRA function: Solely intended to help clinicians with the administrative task of documenting a clinical encounter. The transcript is for clinician review and editing. The product is not intended to provide clinical suggestions, recommendations, or other information beyond what was discussed.
• GB status: Not a medical device. Converting the conversation to text in a healthcare setting, without a medical purpose, does not meet the device definition.

Example 2: Summary of a clinical conversation

• MHRA function: Administrative documentation and summarising of the encounter for subsequent review. The summary is for clinician review and editing or correction before it is saved to the electronic health record. It is not intended to provide clinical suggestions beyond what was discussed.
• GB status: Not a medical device. Summarising the conversation, without a medical purpose, is administrative.

A SOAP-style layout can still sit on this path if it only organises what was said. SOAP is a common clinical-note format; it is not an MHRA example heading.

Example 3: Structured data from the encounter for clinician confirmation

• MHRA function: Formats information from transcripts or summaries into structured data for the clinician to review, edit, and confirm for inclusion in problems lists, current medications lists, order sets, or other similar documentation. Output may appear as reminders or checks for potentially missing data. The product is not intended to derive or recommend any new information to impact clinical decision-making.
• GB status: Not a medical device.

Example 4: Suggested clinical codes from explicitly mentioned terms

• MHRA function: Matches potential clinical codes to terms or information from the conversation (for example, the name of a condition stated during discussion) and provides those codes for review. It does not deduce diagnoses or codes from implicit information; it suggests codes based on explicitly mentioned clinical terms.
• GB status: Not a medical device. Literal matching to reference code lists is an administrative coding aid.

Example 5: Draft discharge summary or letter

• MHRA function: Drafts a formatted summary or letter for clinician review, which may also include information retrieved from the electronic patient record, as discharge summaries or formatted letters. It is not intended to derive or recommend new information to impact clinical decision-making.
• GB status: Not a medical device. Drafting correspondence from the encounter and existing record, for clinician review, is administrative communication support.

Device illustrations (section 5.2, Examples 6–9)

Example 6: Optional “generated insights”

• MHRA function: The manufacturer presents the product as an administrative summary tool, including disclaimers that it is not intended to provide clinical suggestions beyond the encounter. But users can request insights as part of the summary or regenerate a summary with insights. Insight generation is discussed in sales material. The designed insights feature can include diagnoses or treatments. The user interface warning in the paper is: “the insights feature is not intended to replace traditional methods of diagnosis or treatment.”
• GB status: Medical device. MHRA’s point is that the highlighted insights feature is for diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, prediction, prognosis, treatment or alleviation of disease even when the manufacturer still calls the product a summary tool.

Example 7: The claims fork (same function as Example 2)

• MHRA function: Identical in function to Example 2. The manufacturer claims the product “guides diagnosis and treatment planning and improves patient outcomes.”
• GB status: Medical device. Intended purpose follows the manufacturer’s claims. Administrative functionality plus medical marketing is still a medical purpose.

Example 8: Autonomous save and ordering

• MHRA function: Operates as an ambient scribe and then finalises and saves transcripts to the electronic patient record without requiring a clinician’s review. It analyses the transcript to autonomously determine necessary follow-up tests and place the relevant orders without clinician input or confirmation.
• GB status: Medical device. The product is intended to make judgements, treatment decisions, and take actions a clinician would otherwise take or oversee, and it acts without required review.

Example 9: Suggested diagnoses for reliance

• MHRA function: Drafts a report from a clinician’s dictation or a clinical conversation and relevant test results from the record. It then analyses those data and provides suggested diagnoses. The reasoning may not be presented, or may be presented in a very limited manner: the healthcare professional is intended to rely on the output of the software without review of the reasoning, rather than on their own knowledge.
• GB status: Medical device. Clinician review of a diagnosis list does not keep this example outside the definition when reliance on the unreasoned output is intended.

Nine-example decision matrix

Example	Core function on the MHRA paper	Claims / design extras	Clinician role	GB status
1	Transcript of the conversation	No clinical suggestions beyond the encounter	Reviews and edits the transcript	Non-device
2	Summary of the conversation	No clinical suggestions beyond the encounter	Reviews and edits before EHR save	Non-device
3	Structured data into problems lists, medications, order sets	Missing-data reminders only; no new clinical recommendations	Confirms or rejects structured fields	Non-device
4	Code suggestions from explicitly mentioned terms	No inferred diagnoses from implicit information	Selects and approves codes	Non-device
5	Draft letter or discharge summary, including existing record data	No new information to impact decision-making	Reviews, edits, and uses the draft	Non-device
6	Summary plus optional generated insights (diagnoses or treatments)	UI warning does not defeat the insights feature	Sees insight output	Device
7	Same summary function as Example 2	Marketed as guiding diagnosis and treatment planning and improving outcomes	Reviews the summary	Device (claims fork)
8	Saves transcript without required review and places follow-up orders	Autonomous clinical action	No required pre-confirmation	Device
9	Suggested diagnoses from dictation/conversation plus test results	Intended reliance without review of the reasoning	May still click a diagnosis	Device

---

When Do Marketing Claims Turn a Transcript-Only Scribe into a Device?

Example 2 and Example 7 are the same software function. The fork is intended purpose.

	Example 2 positioning	Example 7 positioning
Technical function	Summary of the consultation for clinician edit	Identical
Typical claims	Administrative time saved; draft notes; clinician must review	“Guides diagnosis and treatment planning and improves patient outcomes”
GB qualification	Not a device on the paper	Device on the paper
UKCA / DORS	Not a device-registration obligation of this paper	Device duties apply, then classify
NHS clinical safety	Still in scope for England deployments	Still in scope, plus device law

Commercial language that assigns a diagnostic or treatment purpose—on the website, in tenders, in sales decks, or in investor materials—is promotional material for Regulation 2(1). Examples of the kind of claim that creates that risk (these are illustrations, not MHRA quotations or outcome statistics):

• “Empowers doctors to detect rare conditions earlier”
• “Optimises clinical pathways and patient outcomes”
• “Guides diagnosis and treatment planning”

If those claims are made about software that has not gone through the applicable UKCA route, the company is placing a device on the GB market without the corresponding conformity assessment.

Claims-and-materials audit

Manufacturers who intend to stay on the non-device path need a consistent intended-purpose file:

1. Website and landing pages — administrative efficiency, not diagnostic efficacy.
2. Sales decks and ROI tools — hours saved and letter turnaround, not clinical error reduction.
3. NHS tender responses — state that the product is an administrative documentation aid requiring clinician review, and that it does not provide the Example 6–9 functions.
4. Investor and press copy — do not describe an Example 1–5 product as a diagnostic co-pilot.

---

If It Is a Device in Great Britain, Is It Class I or Class IIa under Rules 10 and 12?

Qualification and classification are sequential. First decide whether the product is a device. Only then apply UK MDR 2002 Part II, which uses the classification criteria in Annex IX of Directive 93/42/EEC (MDD).

Great Britain does not currently apply EU MDR Rule 11 to GB-placed devices. Classification of qualifying AVT is read through MHRA’s Medical device stand-alone software including apps (including IVDMDs) guidance, which the AVT paper cites for Rules 10 and 12 and for “direct diagnosis.” (MHRA also cites a second assets.publishing.service.gov.uk path for the same standalone-software document.)

Question	If yes	If no
Does the product qualify as a GB medical device?	Classify	Stop; it is not a UKCA device
Does it allow direct diagnosis as MHRA defines that term?	Rule 10 → Class IIa (approved body for UKCA)	Rule 12 → Class I (self-declaration plus DORS), unless another active-device rule applies

MHRA’s AVT paper reproduces Rule 10 in full, including energy-absorption, radiopharmaceutical imaging, and ionising-radiation limbs that will not usually be the AVT issue. The limb that matters for scribes is allowing direct diagnosis (or monitoring of vital physiological processes, with a Class IIb step-up for parameters whose variation could result in immediate danger).

The standalone-software guidance, as quoted in the AVT paper, treats a device as allowing direct diagnosis when:

1. it provides the diagnosis of the disease or condition by itself;
2. it provides decisive information for making a diagnosis; or
3. claims are made that it can perform as, or support the function of, a clinician in performing diagnostic tasks.

MHRA adds that providing decisive information can include determining the probability of a disease or condition from a clinical interaction or other medical information, where that information is intended to be relied upon to determine treatment or clinical management. Such AVT devices “should be regulated as a class IIa medical device.”

Examples 6 and 9 will usually be Rule 10 Class IIa on that reading: insights or suggested diagnoses intended to guide or be relied upon.

Example 7 is a device because of claims. Those claims (“guides diagnosis…”) can themselves be Rule 10 “direct diagnosis” claims even if the software still only summarises. Do not assume a claims-only product is automatically Class I.

Example 8 is a device because it takes autonomous diagnostic/treatment action. Classification still needs a Rule 10 versus Rule 12 analysis of what the software actually does; autonomous ordering of tests is not a Class I documentation tool.

Rule 12 is the residual active-device class: “All other active devices are class I.” It is not a safe harbour for diagnostic insights.

Requirement	Class I (Rule 12)	Class IIa (Rule 10)
Conformity assessment	Manufacturer self-declaration (MDD Annex VII as applied by UK MDR)	Approved-body assessment (Annex II or Annex V plus VI, as applicable)
Approved body	Not required unless sterile or measuring	Required for UKCA
Technical documentation	Compiled and held; available to MHRA	Audited in the applicable approved-body procedure
MHRA registration	DORS; £300 per Level 2 GMDN category for 2026/27	Same DORS fee once registered
Time to market	Not a statutory clock in the AVT paper; still requires a completed file and registration	Depends on approved-body capacity and the file; the AVT paper sets no queue time

For the EU active-device comparison used in Northern Ireland, see Rules 9–13: Active Devices.

---

Recommended Reading

Medical Device Trial Master File (TMF) and ISF Guide: ISO 14155, FDA, and EU MDR

Clinical Evidence Regulatory2026-08-23 · 41 min read

Should You Keep, Change, or Drop an Existing Class I UKCA Mark?

The AVT paper does not set a transition period, a UKCA withdrawal standard operating procedure, or an enforcement timetable. The keep-versus-drop question is still a real one for vendors who self-certified under the earlier NHS “treat AVT as a device” practice.

You cannot lawfully UKCA-mark software that does not qualify as a medical device. UKCA is a device mark. A tender that “requires UKCA” is a procurement specification, not a second MHRA qualification test.

Path	When it fits	What it is not
1. Non-device	Examples 1–5, claims cleaned, no insights/autonomy/diagnosis features	Not a licence to keep a UKCA mark on a non-device. Confirm any DORS cancellation against current MHRA registration guidance; the AVT paper does not define the account steps.
2. Remain a Class I device	The product does meet the UK MDR definition and Rule 12 actually applies (no direct diagnosis)	Not a sticker you can put on Example 1–5 software to satisfy a tender. Not available for Examples 6 and 9 if Rule 10 applies.
3. Class IIa	Direct diagnosis (functions or claims)	Cannot remain self-certified Class I. Feature-flag uncertified insight modules in GB while the approved-body file is built.

NHS organisations may still write medical-device certification into contracts. That buyer preference does not convert Example 2 software into a device, and it does not let a manufacturer use Class I to cover a Rule 10 function.

If the product remains a device, GB post-market device duties continue; see Regulatory Background. Dropping device status drops those device duties. It does not drop NHS clinical-safety duties for an England deployment.

Draft May 2026 GB pre-market reform, including possible future software up-classification, is not current Rule 10/12 law. For that draft, see PCCPs for AI and Software Devices.

---

What Still Applies If You Are Not a Medical Device: DCB0129, DCB0160, DPIA and NHS Procurement

MHRA’s AVT paper says the approach to non-device products is outside its scope and points users to NHS England’s ambient-scribing guidance. Version 3 is for England. It is not a device-qualification ruling.

Layer	What the official pages actually name	What it is not
Deploying organisation (Version 3 quick guide)	Assign a Clinical Safety Officer; complete DCB0160 documentation; complete a DPIA; plan integration, controls, and monitoring	Not an MHRA device file
Manufacturer companion standard	DCB0129 clinical risk management in the manufacture of health IT, described with DCB0160 in NHS England’s digital clinical safety assurance page	Not UK MDR 2002
Joint letter	NHS organisations remain responsible for safe deployment; procure products that can interface with the EPR; boards and executive teams must assure local arrangements	The extracted letter does not reprint a full board checklist; the MHRA news page asks boards to assure clinical oversight, local governance, staff training, procurement, and review of functionality changes that may alter regulatory status
AVT supplier registry	The letter says the Ambient Voice Technology Self-Certified Supplier Registry remains available to support adoption	Not an MHRA determination that the product is or is not a device

DCB0129 and DCB0160 are NHS clinical-safety information standards for health IT in England. They apply because the software is health IT used in NHS care, not because MHRA classified it as a device. Version 3’s quick implementation guide is the AVT-specific official prompt: CSO, DCB0160, DPIA.

Typical AVT hazards for those safety cases—hallucinated examination findings, omitted negatives, phonetic confusion, and verification fatigue—are design and deployment risks. They are not a substitute for intended-purpose analysis, and they are not a finding that non-device AVT is unlawful.

Information governance still applies to identifiable consultation audio under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Version 3 names the DPIA. Other NHS procurement artefacts (DSPT, DTAC) may appear in local tenders; they are not the 29 July MHRA qualification test and were not used here as a second official “mandatory AVT stack.”

Adoption support is described in the joint letter and on Adopting ambient scribing products in health and care settings. National support is planned to start with outpatients.

---

How Do Northern Ireland (EU MDR Rule 11) and FDA CDS 2026 Differ from This GB Guidance?

Feature	Great Britain (MHRA AVT 2026)	Northern Ireland / EU (MDR)	United States (FDA)
Governing law	UK MDR 2002; MDD Annex IX Rules 10 and 12	EU MDR 2017/745, including Annex VIII Rule 11; MDCG 2019-11	FD&C Act device definition plus §520(o) exclusions, including administrative software and CDS under 520(o)(1)(E)
Transcript / summary with clinician review	Non-device (Examples 1–2) if that is the intended purpose	Administrative documentation without medical analysis is generally not MDSW	Documentation and summarisation for HCP review can be non-device; 2026 CDS guidance added clinical-documentation examples
Explicit-term code matching	Non-device (Example 4)	Clerical matching is not, by itself, MDSW	Typically administrative
Diagnostic insights	Device; usually Rule 10 Class IIa if direct diagnosis	Rule 11 Class IIa, IIb, or III for software that provides information used to take decisions with diagnosis or therapeutic purposes	Analyse under all four CDS criteria; failing any one criterion makes that function a device
Autonomous ordering	Device (Example 8)	Device under MDR if it has a medical purpose	Generally a device function, not non-device CDS
Conformity assessment if a device	UK Approved Body for Class IIa+	EU Notified Body for Class IIa+	510(k) or De Novo if the function is a device

The 29 July paper does not apply in Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor Framework, EU MDR applies there. See EU MDR and IVDR for Software. Do not treat 2 August 2026 EU AI Act dates as the MHRA AVT rule; for that dual-compliance model see The Dual Compliance Model: MDR/IVDR + AI Act.

In the United States, a transcript-only scribe is often closer to the administrative software exclusion than to CDS. Functions that recommend diagnosis or treatment are assessed under Section 520(o)(1)(E). All four statutory criteria must be met for non-device CDS, including Criterion 1 (the software is not intended to acquire, process, or analyse medical images, IVD signals, or patterns/signals from a signal acquisition system) and Criterion 4 (the healthcare professional can independently review the basis of the recommendation and not rely primarily on it). Quoting a transcript snippet does not automatically satisfy Criterion 4. FDA CDS 2026 is a different statute; it is not UK authority. See FDA's 2026 CDS Guidance Redefined the Boundary Between Regulated Software and Non-Device Tools.

---

Recommended Reading

Medical Device AI Bias Testing: Fairness Validation and Documentation

Digital Health & AI Regulatory2026-05-14 · 33 min read

What Does This Cost Beyond a UKCA Certificate or a DORS Line?

Separate official government fees from provider prices and from NHS implementation costs. The AVT paper invents none of these figures.

Cost type	What it is	Source basis	Applies when
MHRA DORS annual registration	£300 per year per Level 2 GMDN category (or Level 1 where no Level 2 exists), 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027	Official: Register medical devices to place on the market and Current MHRA fees table 7d	Registered devices only. Non-device AVT does not incur this government fee.
UK Responsible Person	Provider price for a UK-established UKRP	Commercial; not an MHRA tariff. See How Much Does It Cost to Register a Medical Device in the UK in 2026? for published and RFP model ranges	Non-UK manufacturers of devices placed in GB. Non-device software does not become a UKRP-triggering device merely because an NHS clinic uses it.
UK Approved Body assessment	Provider price for Class IIa+ UKCA	Commercial; no official manufacturer quote is published in the AVT paper or the MHRA fees table for this work (table 7b is approved-body designation fees)	Products that are Class IIa or above
DCB0129 / DCB0160, CSO, DPIA, integration	Implementation and NHS assurance labour	NHS/provider cost, not an MHRA device fee	England deployments of health IT, including non-device AVT

Do not treat the £300 line as the cost of “doing AVT in the NHS.” For products that remain devices, the DORS change is explained in Change 2: New DORS Annual Registration Fees.

---

The Data Reality: PARD Cannot Census AI Scribes, and HSSIB Is Not a Qualification Ruling

Bounded analysis of a public PARD device extract

MedDeviceGuide analysed a public MHRA Public Access Registration Database device extract dated 7 July 2026 (22,633 device rows; 12,666 manufacturer rows in the companion manufacturer extract). Independently re-counted on 27 August 2026, that extract has 22,633 device records. Public fields in the extract are device ID, registration status, type, GMDN code/term, custom-made and performance-study flags, last updated date, and manufacturer organisation ID. There is no trade name, intended-purpose, UKCA class, or AVT-function field.

MHRA has said PARD would start displaying medical-device brand/trade name from 23 February 2026. That live-site change does not appear in this harvested device-search extract. Treat the counts below as a statement about this extract, not as a live PARD UI census.

Measure in the 7 July 2026 device extract	Count
Device rows	22,633
Manufacturer rows (companion extract)	12,666
Unique GMDN terms	13,660
Active status DREGIY	21,227
Expired/cancelled CACEXP	1,406
General medical devices	13,240
IVD	8,553
System or procedure pack	648
Active implantable	192
GMDN terms containing “scribe” or “ambient voice”	0
GMDN term “Digital dictation system”	4 rows (legacy dictation term, not a GenAI AVT census)
GMDN terms containing “software”	420 (many clinical systems, not scribes)

Conclusion: public PARD cannot tell you how many AI scribes are on the GB market, or which vendors hold a Class I mark for a scribe. Buyers need the vendor’s intended-purpose materials, Declaration of Conformity if it is a device, and the DCB safety case for an NHS deployment.

The extract predates the 29 July 2026 guidance. It also under-counts products that were never registered because they are not devices. For landscape methodology on an earlier extract, see Data Source and Methodology. Do not reuse that article’s manufacturer rankings as an AVT league table.

HSSIB hospital investigation

The Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) has launched an investigation, The use of Ambient Voice Technology in hospitals. The page retrieved for this article does not display a launch date in the body.

Item	What HSSIB’s page states
What AVT is	AI-enabled ambient scribing: capture, transcribe, generate structured notes/letters/summaries
Why it opened	Intelligence that adoption is accelerating while safety implications are not fully understood; literature has focused more on efficiency; AI-related incident reporting is not yet mature
Scope	Acute adult secondary care: contribution to harm, patient-safety risks, local and national accountability; a generic-AI analysis framework
Output	Investigation report expected summer 2027
Contact	investigations@hssib.org.uk

That investigation is not a finding that non-device AVT is unlawful, or that device AVT is safe. Qualification under UK MDR 2002 and patient-safety investigation are different questions.

Royal College of Physicians counter-perspective

On 31 July 2026, the Royal College of Physicians published a concern note. Dr Anne Kinderlerer, RCP clinical digital health lead, argued that leaving healthcare AVT outside the device framework risks oversight gaps because an inaccurate summary can change care; that similar technologies may be regulated differently depending on how they are marketed rather than how they function; and that stepping back from regulating all AVTs risks a fragmented, poorly integrated market. RCP also notes that responsibility for errors may fall more heavily on individual clinicians and trusts.

Those points should sit next to MHRA’s proportionate split, not underneath it. techUK and NHS procurement practice may still favour suppliers who can show a device certificate; that is a buyer preference, not a rewrite of Examples 1–5.

---

MHRA AVT 30/60/90-Day Claims, Feature-Flag and Account Plan

This sequence is an operational checklist. The 29 July 2026 paper sets no 30-, 60-, or 90-day statutory clock.

Window	Focus	Typical actions
Days 1–30	Claims and architecture	Map every feature to Examples 1–9. Audit website, sales decks, tenders, IFU, and UI copy. Feature-flag uncertified insight, autonomy, or diagnosis modules in Great Britain.
Days 31–60	Safety case and workflow	Update DCB0129/DCB0160 materials and the DPIA. Require an explicit clinician action before text is committed to the record. Remove Example 8 autonomous save/order paths from GB SKUs that are positioned as non-device.
Days 61–90	NHS commercial and DORS	Decide registry evidence packs. If you are lawfully leaving the device regime, align the DORS account with current MHRA registration rules before the next 31 March category snapshot. If you remain a device, keep the file, UKRP (if required), and class consistent with Rule 10 or 12.

Days 1–30

• Compare each live feature with MHRA sections 5.1 and 5.2, including Example 7 claims.
• Remove diagnostic-efficacy and treatment-guidance claims from materials for any SKU you intend to keep on Examples 1–5.
• If Example 6/9 functions exist without Class IIa UKCA, disable them for GB rather than hiding them behind a disclaimer.

Days 31–60

• Appoint or confirm the Clinical Safety Officer and refresh the hazard log for hallucination, omission, and phonetic error.
• Confirm the UI cannot file a note or place an order without required clinician confirmation if you are claiming the non-device path.
• Complete or update the DPIA for identifiable consultation audio.

Days 61–90

• Prepare the NHS England registry pack if you are seeking listing; do not treat listing as MHRA qualification.
• Align DORS with the actual qualification outcome. Cancelling a device line does not cancel NHS safety-case work.
• Hand deploying trusts a DCB0160 pack that matches the current feature set, not the pre-July 2026 pitch deck.

---

Recommended Reading

IVDR Performance Study Requirements: Application vs Notification, Timelines, and Reporting

Clinical Evidence Regulatory2026-08-22 · 50 min read

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the 29 July 2026 MHRA AVT guidance changed UK MDR 2002, or is it interpretive guidance?

It did not change the law. MHRA’s news page says so in those words. The paper is interpretive guidance on how existing UK MDR 2002 definitions apply to AVT. MHRA also says it is not a complete or definitive statement of the law and is not a substitute for legal advice.

Can a “not for diagnosis” disclaimer keep an insights feature outside the device definition?

No. MHRA’s wording is that general disclaimers (for example “this product is not for diagnosis”) are not acceptable if medical claims are made or implied elsewhere in labelling or promotional material, including websites, sales presentations, or online advertisements. Example 6 is the worked case: an insights feature with a “not intended to replace traditional methods of diagnosis or treatment” warning is still a device on the paper.

If our product only summarises the consultation for clinician edit, do we need UKCA marking?

Not on Example 2, provided that is the whole intended purpose: summary for clinician review and editing before EHR save, with no clinical suggestions beyond the encounter and no Example 7 medical claims. UKCA marking is for devices. You still need the NHS clinical-safety and DPIA work for an England deployment.

Do we still need DCB0129 and DCB0160 if MHRA says we are not a medical device?

For NHS England deployments, yes—the clinical-safety standards are not MHRA device law. Version 3 tells deploying organisations to assign a Clinical Safety Officer, complete DCB0160, and complete a DPIA. DCB0129 is the manufacturer-side companion. Non-device qualification does not switch those off.

Does this guidance apply in Northern Ireland?

No. It applies to products placed on the market or put into service in Great Britain. Northern Ireland follows EU MDR, including Rule 11 for qualifying software.

If we already self-certified as Class I because NHS England previously treated all AVT as devices, should we withdraw the registration?

There is no withdrawal SOP in the AVT paper. The lawful options depend on what the product is:

1. If it is genuinely Examples 1–5 after a claims-and-feature audit, it is not a device. Keeping a UKCA mark would be marking a non-device. Align DORS with current MHRA registration guidance; do not treat “the tender wants UKCA” as qualification.
2. If it is a device and Rule 12 actually applies, Class I self-declaration can remain, with a technical file, DORS, and a UKRP if you are not UK-established.
3. If Rule 10 applies, Class I is the wrong class.

Can the MHRA Public Access Registration Database show how many AI scribes are on the GB market?

No. The 7 July 2026 public device extract (22,633 rows) has no trade-name or intended-purpose field, zero GMDN terms containing “scribe” or “ambient voice,” and four “Digital dictation system” rows that are not a GenAI census. PARD cannot answer that market-size question.

---

How Pure Global Supports UK and Global Digital Health Compliance

Navigating AVT qualification, generative-AI risk management, and NHS market entry takes coordinated regulatory, clinical-safety, and commercial work. Pure Global provides independent regulatory consulting, software classification strategy, and technical-file compilation for digital health and medical device manufacturers entering the UK, European, and other markets.

Services that map to this paper include:

• Software qualification and boundary audits against MHRA AVT examples, EU MDR, and FDA non-device exclusions.
• UK market access and representation through the United Kingdom market access practice and Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) advisory work.
• NHS digital clinical safety support for DCB0129 materials used alongside trust DCB0160 deployments.
• Approved-body and notified-body navigation for Class IIa software under UK MDR Rule 10 and EU MDR Rule 11.

To audit a classification strategy before the next NHS tender, contact Pure Global.

Pure Global provides independent regulatory and UK market-access project support. Pure Global is not the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), a UK Approved Body, NHS England, or an EU Notified Body, and does not issue statutory UKCA or CE certificates.

---

Sources

1. Ambient voice technology-enabled products — Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (published 29 July 2026).
2. MHRA clarifies regulatory status of ambient voice technologies used in the NHS — MHRA (29 July 2026).
3. Medical device regulation for ambient voice technology products — NHS England and MHRA joint letter (PRN02607_i, 29 July 2026).
4. Guidance on the use of AI-enabled ambient scribing products in health and care settings (Version 3) — NHS England (England only).
5. Digital clinical safety assurance — NHS England (DCB0129 and DCB0160).
6. The use of Ambient Voice Technology in hospitals — Health Services Safety Investigations Body.
7. RCP expresses concern over MHRA decision not to regulate all automated voice technologies as medical devices — Royal College of Physicians (31 July 2026; Dr Anne Kinderlerer, clinical digital health lead).
8. Digital mental health technology: qualification and classification — MHRA (last updated 29 July 2026).
9. Medical device stand-alone software including apps (including IVDMDs) — MHRA.
10. Register medical devices to place on the market — MHRA (£300 GMDN Level 2 category fee, 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027).
11. Current MHRA fees (table 7d) — MHRA.
12. Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/618), regulation 2 — legislation.gov.uk.
13. MDCG 2019-11: Guidance on Qualification and Classification of Software — Medical Device Coordination Group.
14. Public Access Registration Database — search devices — MHRA.
15. Adopting ambient scribing products in health and care settings — NHS England.