As healthcare services deploy AI to automate patient-facing communication, concerns persist about the interactional work through which empathy is made relevant. We examine empathy not as an internal state but as an interactional accomplishment, asking how patients display orientations to an LLM-powered voice assistant’s turns as (non-)empathic in real clinical telephone calls. Using Conversation Analysis (CA) to analyse post–cataract surgery follow-up calls conducted by AI-powered voice assistant Dora (Ufonia), we compare patient responses across earlier and later system versions.Earlier calls show minimal, delayed, prosodically closed responses to wellbeing enquiries, consistent with treating Dora as a transactional information-gathering device. Later calls more often feature socially rich formats, for example colloquial upgrades, gratitude tokens, occasional return enquiries, and increased turn-final rising intonation, suggesting patients hear Dora’s talk as socially implicative and thus opening space for affiliative/empathetic uptake. We discuss implications for CA-informed conversation design and for evaluating “empathy” via participant orientations in situ rather than post-hoc self-report.

Clinical voice agents are now deployed in routine care, where real patients do not wait their turn: they interrupt. These systems typically use a cascaded architecture (speech-to-text → LLM → text-to-speech), so when a patient cuts the agent off mid utterance, clinically required content can be lost even when the model handles cooperative transcripts well. Yet clinical conversational-AI benchmarks almost universally assume patients wait for the agent to finish, missing interruption-induced loss of required content. We present a transcript-based evaluation of interruption recovery, adapting conversation-analytic overlap categories into three operational types (recognitional, competitive, transitional sub-unit) and testing four deployment-oriented, non-reasoning LLM configurations across four cells spanning history-taking (information gathering) and FAQ (information provision), scored on whether the agent preserves the clinically required content. In the gathering cells, target-question failure varied across models; in the provision cells, where arms are directly comparable, failure rose for every model. Rankings differ across cells, and competitive FAQ interruption produced 30/30 provision-coverage failures for all four models (Wilson 95% CI: 88.6–100.0%; baseline 0/30 for three, 4/30 for Llama). A brief apology marker (“sorry to interrupt”) shifts recovery by tens of percentage points, inconsistently across models, and for one it reduces recovery. Interruption robustness therefore cannot be a single score: evaluation must be content-grounded, reported per cell, and matched to the deployment’s interruption profile.