Patient portal AI assistant

Epic Emmie (incl. Ask Emmie)

Epic Emmie combines direct patient record questions with health-system control of available actions. Sutter’s published version cannot schedule, message, or update the chart. Its chat-visibility rules do not establish an absence of retention or secondary processing.

AI-assisted draft Read full report Open directory

Published September 8, 2026 as an AI-assisted draft. The public report separates documented facts, agency judgments and unresolved questions.

38 /100 toward patient-directed

Agency posture Mixed, institution-led and directly patient-facing

The question we ask Who does Epic Emmie (incl. Ask Emmie) serve in this deployment?

Control Epic's patient-facing MyChart AI family, with a focused current check of the Epic catalog and Sutter deployment. The July 21 baseline is 38, Mixed, institution-led and directly patient-facing. Reid details remain July evidence.

Agency read Mixed, institution-led and directly patient-facing

Vendor: Epic Systems Corporation
Who it serves: Institutional patient-facing AI embedded in the MyChart patient portal and deployed by health systems
Primary User: Patients and proxies using MyChart at health systems that have enabled Emmie
Control Model: Professional or institution-configured service. Patient controls depend on the deployment.
Patient Impact: Record explanations and follow-up questions can support patients' reasoning. Feedback is useful but does not promise resolution of a disputed answer. Immediate summaries merit source and uncertainty visibility, which these pages do not establish in use.
Profile Status: AI-assisted draft
Last assessed: Sep 8, 2026
Review Confidence: Medium for current catalog and Sutter scope (AI-assisted draft)
AI / Model: OpenAI Codex / GPT-6
Human Review: Hugo Campos authorized publication of these AI-assisted draft reassessments on September 8, 2026. This does not claim comprehensive human verification of every finding.

Summary judgment · 38 out of 100 toward patient-directed

Epic's patient-facing MyChart AI family, with a focused current check of the Epic catalog and Sutter deployment. The July 21 baseline is 38, Mixed, institution-led and directly patient-facing. Reid details remain July evidence.

Mixed, institution-led and directly patient-facing

Patient agency

How this tool changes agency

Expands agency when

Record explanations and follow-up questions can support patients' reasoning. Feedback is useful but does not promise resolution of a disputed answer. Immediate summaries merit source and uncertainty visibility, which these pages do not establish in use.

Limits agency when

Production models, processing, retention, deletion, automatic-summary choices and correction outcomes remain unknown. The earlier pre-release study and Reid deployment were not newly validated.

Patient agency assessment

Who sets and changes the goal?

Patient authority

Patients can initiate questions about their own chart and choose what to ask. The health system sets available actions and context. Sutter's explicit inability to write to the chart also means patient challenges need a separate record-correction process.

What can the patient understand, question, or do?

Critical capacity

Can the patient evaluate the conditions of use?

Informed control

Sutter gives concrete visibility and proxy boundaries, but provider invisibility is not evidence of absent server retention or secondary use. Catalog claims must remain separate from each health system's rules.

Text findings

Conditions of use

Published controls and their limits

What remains unknown?

Not tested or not established

Production models, processing, retention, deletion, automatic-summary choices and correction outcomes remain unknown. The earlier pre-release study and Reid deployment were not newly validated.

Who evaluated this?

AI-assisted public-source draft

Vendor statements describe published conditions, not independently verified behavior. No clinical, security, accessibility, or legal validation is claimed. Earlier evidence remains dated in the report and history.

Sources checked

Source-specific findings and retrieval limitations are recorded in the full report.

Review provenance

Criteria

CAIHL-derived HugoScore framework and September 7 qualitative review priorities. Draft v1.2 numerical anchors remain unadopted.

Reviewer

AI-assisted public-source reassessment prepared in OpenAI Codex.

AI / model

OpenAI Codex / GPT-6

Human review

Hugo Campos authorized publication of these AI-assisted draft reassessments on September 8, 2026. This does not claim comprehensive human verification of every finding.

Review date

2026-09-08

Limitations

Production models, processing, retention, deletion, automatic-summary choices and correction outcomes remain unknown. The earlier pre-release study and Reid deployment were not newly validated. No live product use, patient-data upload, account creation, code audit, clinical evaluation, or independent implementation validation.

Review method

Focused public-source reassessment using CAIHL: patient authority, critical capacity, and informed control. Existing evidence plus one focused primary-source pass and at most one targeted follow-up. No live product testing. Numerical scores remain provisional editorial placements, not a new calculation.

AI-assisted draft · Medium for current catalog and Sutter scope (AI-assisted draft)