AI in the clinic: Steps to implement decision algorithms without compromising patient safety

Table of Contents
    Add a header to begin generating the table of contents

    The integration of AI into clinical settings gets a lot of people’s backs up. Some claim it’s the innovation that will finally solve NHS waiting times, while others remain cautious about patient data privacy.

    With such important and sensitive public-serving services, being conservative makes sense. But we shouldn’t underestimate the opportunity cost of stagnating, either, as missed opportunities for improvements in treatment delivery are a devastating human cost in and of themselves.

    From triage and risk stratification to personalized treatment planning in genomics, decision algorithms are delivering increased efficiency and more precise care. Algorithmic error, though, is no longer a matter of miscategorizing an email, but a failure that can impact patient outcomes. 

    To harness the power of AI responsibly, healthcare organizations must follow a structured path.

    AI in the clinic: Steps to implement decision algorithms without compromising patient safety

    Being specific in your clinical objective

    The first step to having a safe implementation is a clear understanding of what the AI is intended to do (and therefore, what it is not). Safety issues often come about from function creep, where a tool designed for one purpose is inadvertently applied to another. In a clinical setting, this may mean an algorithm designed for symptom checking suddenly becomes relied on over time for definitive diagnosis. 

    Organizations must identify the specific clinical problem they are solving – and to be tight and targeted with this. Is the goal to reduce administrative burden, to flag high-risk patients in a queue, or to assist in interpreting genetic data? 

    The clinical intent needs to be agreed upon ahead of time so that the guardrails can be put in place.

    Data integrity, representativeness and bias

    An AI algorithm is only as reliable as the data used to train it. Biases can occur in training data, and the implications of this is, of course, disparities in care. Certain demographics can respond differently to treatments, as well as having different risk profiles. Of course, AI is perfect for seeking out these patterns, but only when this is the intention. 

    Implementation teams must audit their data for representativeness, and this includes gaps in age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. This goes well beyond ethics and ESG – it’s simply a technical requirement. The data must be clean and labeled accurately, and sourced from only high-quality clinical records. 

    Validating algorithms against clinical gold standards

    Before an algorithm ever enters the clinic, it must be put through tough validation. This is a process that compares the AI’s recommendations against “gold standard” clinical benchmarks.

    Validation should not be viewed as a one-time event. It starts with internal validation (testing on a subset of the training data) but should move toward external validation (testing on entirely new data from different clinical environments). This keeps the algorithm generalizable and can handle the variability of real-world clinical practice. During this phase, safety metrics such as the false-negative rate must be prioritized and monitored. In a clinical triage scenario, missing a high-risk patient is far more dangerous than a false alarm.

    Prioritizing human-centered design

    Even the most accurate algorithm can compromise safety if it is poorly integrated into the clinical workflow. Clinicians can be overwhelmed by alert fatigue, which is a phenomenon of having many digital notifications leading to white noise. Here, warnings are ignored.

    A safe AI implementation relies on human-centered design (UX/UI), which is why digital transformation consulting for healthcare is so important, as it takes this holistic approach. The goal is to create human-in-the-loop systems so the AI acts as a co-pilot rather than an autonomous pilot. 

    The interface should present AI insights clearly, having explanations behind a recommendation (explainability) to help the clinician make the final informed decision. By focusing on usability, organizations can aud the clinician towards using AI as an effective assistant, helping contain it to its original purpose.

    Interoperability and compliance 

    For AI to function safely when scaled, it must be easy to integrate with the existing healthcare infrastructure, such as Electronic Health Records (EHR) and laboratory systems, and do so securely. This means committing to interoperability standards like HL7 and FHIR rather than proprietary standards. Without these, data silos can lead to fragmented information, causing the AI to base decisions on an incomplete picture.

    Compliance with regulations such as HIPAA is a legal requirement. But they help protect patient privacy and keep the security of the data pipeline to halt unauthorized changes to clinical data.

    Continuous monitoring and feedback

    Clinical environments are surprisingly dynamic (or, at least, they should be). The risk is that AI models can experience performance drift over time as medical practices evolve or patient demographics shift. A safe implementation means setting up ongoing surveillance. Regular tests, for example.

    It’s not just about safeguarding either, but actively improving and iterating. Feedback loops are useful here, as clinicians should have a straightforward way to report instances where the AI’s suggestion was incorrect or unhelpful, or could be improved. This means that clinical treatment and service acts as capital-building – it helps improve the algorithm and therefore patient outcomes, creating a scalable feedback loop for iteration.