Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly entering clinical workflows through transcription and documentation systems, often referred to as “AI scribes.” In UK general practice, these tools promise to reduce administrative burden and support clinician focus during consultations. Their introduction, however, raises complex questions about safety, accountability, governance, and patient trust.To explore the governance, ethical, and professional framework surrounding the implementation of AI scribe technology within UK general practice, and to examine whether AI represents an emerging and likely development in the delivery of primary care.A narrative literature review and policy synthesis were undertaken. Data sources included published NHS digital governance frameworks, clinical safety standards (DCB0129/0160, DTAC), regulatory and professional guidance (RCGP, MHRA), and evaluation reports of AI scribe deployment in general practice. Key themes were identified around safety, data protection, consent, and clinical accountability.AI scribes demonstrate potential to improve documentation efficiency and clinician workload management. However, consistent governance frameworks, data protection clarity, and transparent patient communication are essential. Risks identified include misinformation (“AI hallucination”), variable data handling practices, and ambiguity regarding legal bases for data processing. Existing regulatory standards were not designed for adaptive AI systems, creating uncertainty around liability and consent processes.While AI scribes align with the NHS Long Term Plan and broader priorities for digital transformation in UK primary care, their adoption must remain clinician-led, ethically governed, and evidence-informed. The current infrastructure for risk management and data governance requires adaptation to reflect AI-specific challenges.The integration of AI into general practice appears increasingly likely but must be approached cautiously and with appropriate oversight. Safe and effective implementation will depend on the evolution of clinical governance and safety standards, independent validation mechanisms, and ongoing engagement with both clinicians and patients. AI scribes should be viewed as tools that augment, not replace, clinical judgment.