A checklist for evaluating AI therapy note tools.
Speed matters, but reviewability matters more. Use this checklist to evaluate documentation tools around client trust, source evidence, and clinician control.
First principle
AI should draft. Clinicians should review.
A trustworthy documentation workflow keeps the original material inspectable and makes the clinician responsible for the final record.
Checklist
Six areas to verify before trusting an AI note workflow.
Consent comes before tooling
The tool should support a consent-based workflow. It should never imply that recording a session is automatically appropriate.
- Does your practice have a clear recording consent process?
- Can the tool work with consent notes or client aliases?
- Does the product avoid encouraging covert or casual recording?
Understand the audio lifecycle
Audio is sensitive. Ask what happens after upload, whether files are retained, and whether vendors use data for training.
- Is audio deleted after processing or retained as a long-term asset?
- Can the clinician delete transcripts and derived notes?
- Does the policy clearly state whether customer data trains models?
Keep the transcript reviewable
A polished note is not enough. Clinicians need the source transcript when a drafted statement needs review.
- Can you inspect the transcript before trusting the note?
- Are speaker labels and timestamps preserved?
- Can you correct transcript errors before finalizing documentation?
Look for evidence anchors
Important observations should connect back to transcript moments. This is especially useful for supervision and audit review.
- Can clinical observations be traced to source material?
- Does the tool make uncertainty visible?
- Can a supervisor review the evidence behind a drafted observation?
Separate drafts from final records
AI should draft. The clinician should review, edit, approve, and decide what becomes part of the record.
- Is AI output clearly marked as a draft?
- Can clinicians edit before export or archive?
- Does the workflow avoid replacing professional judgment?
Test bilingual and code-switching sessions
Bilingual sessions can break generic transcription. Test names, cultural phrases, code-switching, and speaker separation.
- Does the tool handle Mandarin-English switches accurately?
- Does it preserve nuance instead of flattening everything into generic English?
- Can the note format match how your practice actually documents sessions?
Red flags
Signals that deserve extra scrutiny.
No checklist can replace professional, legal, or compliance review. These signals are useful for deciding when to slow down before adopting a tool.
Building for reviewable documentation workflows.
Glisten is an international beta for therapists who need transcripts, evidence-linked notes, supervision prompts, and bilingual documentation support.