Why AI Chatbots on Physician Practice Pages Often Go Unused
AI chat widgets are everywhere in healthcare marketing right now. They look modern. They signal "we're innovating." And they're easy to add to a website. (We even have options available at MDfit.) But when you ask a simple question—do patients actually use them?—the answer is "not much". It's rarely the path a patient chooses. That's not because patients don't want self-service. It's because most website chatbots don't solve the real patient access problems, and over the years patients have been conditioned to assume the chatbot will usually end with "Please call us".
To understand this, think of the main use cases for which patients show up at your website:
- 1With urgency — "I need an appointment"
- 2Uncertainty — "Who should I see?"
- 3Logistics — "Where do I go?"
If the chatbot can't reliably get them to a confident outcome in under a minute, people bounce. It becomes a lesson in patient access channel-design; the best experience is often a direct action, not a "bot" conversation.
This is why practices that offer strong alternatives like robust online self-scheduling and zero-wait voice options, often see their website chatbot become background noise.
Here we'll discuss those and a few other reasons we've seen chatbots struggle for attention on provider websites.
1) Many chatbots today are better at talking than doing
A physician practice page is typically late to the patient's "discovery" journey. By the time a new patient is on your page, they've often already:
- ✓Searched Google or asked an AI for options
- ✓Done basic provider comparisons, scanned reviews, and asked friends, family, or a referring clinician
- ✓Checked their insurance options
That means the new patient arriving is often ready to act:
- ?"This is the doctor I want?"
- ?"Can I book them right now?"
- ?"Do they have availability?"
- ?"Can I double check they take my insurance?"
- ?"Where are they located?"
- ?"What's the phone number?"
At that point, the patient is trying to complete the last mile of booking the visit, confirming the right place or provider, or finding the right phone number. If you already have obvious pathways for those primary use cases, chatbots compete with those simpler options.
For patients who do interact with the chatbot, they want a result with a meaningful action—schedule, reschedule, confirm an appointment, route a referral, or provide accurate location instructions—not a FAQ dialog about your practice.
And the moment a patient sees "Please call our office" or "I can help you with that – what's your name, DOB, and…" you've lost most of them.
2) Chat feels slow when the task is transactional
Chatbots often force a conversational flow for something that should be a single step. "I want the next available appointment with my physician" is not a dialogue; it's a query. Even a good conversational experience can feel slower than simply selecting a time slot online, or speaking a quick sentence to a voice agent that actually books.
When speed matters, patients avoid workflows that feel like they might turn into "20 questions" with unnecessary steps.
3) Trust drops fast when the bot can't be precise
Healthcare scheduling is not like ordering a pizza. Small inaccuracies matter.
- ?"Are you accepting new patients?"
- ?"Do you take my plan at this location?"
- ?"Is this provider the right fit for my condition?"
- ?"Do I need a referral?"
- ?"Which location am I actually going to?"
If the chatbot gives a vague answer, a generic answer, or an overly confident wrong answer, patients won't try it again.
4) Patients don't want to type personal details into a website widget
Even if you explain privacy, many patients are hesitant to enter sensitive information into a small chat panel on a marketing page, especially on mobile. [4]
Patient portal
Feels like a "secure place."
Phone / Voice
Familiar voice workflow feels legitimate.
Website chat bubble
Often the least trusted channel for PHI-like information.
5) Many chat experiences are designed to deflect, not resolve
A lot of chatbots are quietly optimized for "containment" in the wrong way: reduce phone calls by preventing contact. Patients quickly notice when a bot is acting as a gatekeeper. If it's hard to reach a human, people abandon the process or go elsewhere.
The best access experiences feel the opposite—quick resolution when the task is simple, and an easy escalation path when it's not.
Why self-scheduling and voice options beat chat in real-world adoption
Online self-scheduling wins because it's deterministic
When online scheduling is implemented well, it gives patients something chat rarely does: visible, confident choices. Patients can see next available times, locations, providers, visit types. Even if they don't book online, they learn what availability looks like. That builds trust. [5] [6]
Voice wins because it matches how people behave under stress
People booking appointments are often anxious or in pain. They might be driving, or multitasking. Typing is often the wrong interface. Voice is faster and feels more human, especially when it includes a "talk to a person" option.
The Bottom Line
Chatbots on physician practice pages often go unused not because the technology is bad, but because the context is wrong. Patients on practice pages want to act, not chat. When other obvious methods already complete the job, a chat widget becomes noise.
If you want chat to matter, connect it to a robust scheduling platform and design it to finish real work. Otherwise, it will remain what many practice page chatbots are today: visible, modern-looking… and mostly ignored.
References
- Pew Research Center. "Part 2. A Typical Search for Health Information." (2006). pewresearch.org
- Pew Research Center. "Health Information." (2010). pewresearch.org
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC). "Individuals' Access and Use of Patient Portals and Smartphone Health Apps, 2022." healthit.gov
- Pew Research Center. "Health Information Privacy and Security." (2016). pewresearch.org
- Woodcock EW, et al. "Barriers to and Facilitators of Automated Patient Self-Scheduling for Health Care Organizations: Scoping Review." J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(1):e28323. jmir.org
- Kachooei A, et al. "The Effect of Outpatient Web-Based Online Scheduling Versus Traditional Staff Scheduling Systems on Progression to Surgery and No-Show Rates." J Res Med Sci. 2023;28:23. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Wutz M, et al. "Factors Influencing the Acceptability, Acceptance, and Adoption of Conversational Agents in Health Care: Integrative Review." J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e46548. jmir.org
- Laymouna M, et al. "Roles, Users, Benefits, and Limitations of Chatbots in Health Care: Rapid Review." J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e56930. jmir.org