Background: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is an emerging artificial intelligence (AI) strategy that integrates encoded model knowledge with external data sources to enhance accuracy, transparency, and reliability. Unlike traditional large language models (LLMs), which are limited by static training data and potential misinformation, RAG dynamically retrieves and integrates relevant medical literature, clinical guidelines, and real-time data. Given the rapid adoption of AI in healthcare, this scoping review aims to systematically map the current applications, implementation challenges, and research gaps related to RAG in health professions. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A systematic search strategy was designed in collaboration with faculty and a research and education librarian to include PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, and Trip, covering studies published between January 2020 and August 2024. Eligible studies examined the use of RAG in healthcare. Studies were screened in two stages: title/abstract review followed by full-text assessment. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, applications of RAG, ethical and technical challenges, and proposed improvements. Results: A total of 31 studies met inclusion criteria, with 90.32% published in 2024. Authors came from 17 countries with the most frequent publications coming from the USA (n = 15), China (n = 3), and the Republic of Korea (n = 3). Key applications included clinical decision support, healthcare education, and pharmacovigilance. Ethical concerns centered on data privacy, algorithmic bias, explainability, and potential overreliance on AI-generated recommendations. Bias mitigation strategies included dataset diversification, fine-tuning techniques, and expert oversight. Transparency measures such as structured citations, traceable information retrieval, and explainable diagnostic pathways were explored to enhance clinician trust in AI-generated outputs. Identified challenges included optimizing retrieval mechanisms, improving real-time integration, and standardizing validation frameworks. Conclusion: RAG AI has the potential to improve clinical decision-making and healthcare education by addressing key limitations of traditional LLMs. However, significant challenges remain regarding ethical implementation, model reliability, and regulatory oversight. Future research should prioritize refining retrieval accuracy, strengthening bias mitigation strategies, and establishing standardized evaluation metrics. Responsible deployment of RAG-based systems requires interdisciplinary collaboration between AI researchers, clinicians, and policymakers to ensure ethical, transparent, and effective integration into healthcare workflows.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data were extracted from the referenced papers.