A brand of BritixoShadow AI. Clear accountability.

Industry contexts

Keep the clinical and operational context clear.

Healthcare AI can support administration, communication or clinical activity. EUAIC can help organise those distinctions and the evidence needed for the responsible teams to review a proposed use.

AI governance, in practice
DiscoverUnderstand the AI in use
ReviewConsider purpose and risk
GovernAssign owners and oversight
EvidenceKeep the decisions traceable
Illustrative workflow People remain accountable

Describe the intended role in the care process.

Record what the system does, who relies on its output and how it may affect care. Separate an administrative drafting tool from a feature used for diagnosis, treatment or a safety function. Product-related high-risk classification requires assessment of the applicable Article 6 criteria and relevant product legislation.

A supplier's broad healthcare description is not enough. Review the actual intended purpose, instructions, configuration and limitations of the proposed deployment.

Identify what needs clinical and technical review.

Connect the supplier's evidence to the setting in which the system will be used. Ask which patient groups, workflows and limitations were considered, what information is missing and who is qualified to assess it. Keep claims about performance distinct from the organisation's decision to use the system.

An evidence record can index evaluations and approvals without unnecessarily copying patient information. Agree privacy, confidentiality and access arrangements before collecting sensitive material.

Plan intervention and escalation before use.

Define the responsible professional or operational reviewer, the information they need and the action they can take. Consider how uncertainty, unexpected outputs or a service interruption will be handled. A workflow should support a clear escalation path rather than leaving staff to improvise during a concern.

  • Intended-purpose and workflow descriptions.
  • Supplier instructions and evidence references.
  • Named review, escalation and change owners.
  • Approval conditions and monitoring questions.

Scope governance around an accountable service.

An EUAIC engagement can begin with one service, supplier or family of use cases. Map existing clinical, information-governance and technology processes, then agree the additional record and review work needed. Reviewers should be able to see which decision belongs to which accountable body.

EUAIC does not provide clinical approval or substitute for medical-device, safety or professional assessments. A website enquiry should describe the governance requirement without including identifiable patient records.

Sources & further reading

Useful answers

Before you take the next step.

Practical details to help you discuss your requirements.

Is every healthcare AI tool a medical device?

No. Intended purpose and applicable product rules require specific assessment. Administrative tools and clinical functions should not be treated as identical.

Should we upload patient examples in the first enquiry?

No. Describe the workflow in general terms. Any later use of sensitive evidence needs an appropriate purpose, permissions and agreed handling route.

Start with the right questions

Tell us what you need to achieve.

Share your current setup, priorities and intended outcome. The Britixo team will help define the scope, responsibilities and next steps.

Discuss your requirementsBritixo MyAccountVerify your email. Send your enquiry. Keep your reference.

Explore services and practical guidance.

Search matching runs in your browser. Press Esc to close. Browse every page ↗