The majority of organizations are not yet prepared to fully utilize generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), despite the fact that healthcare professionals are well aware of its revolutionary potential in addressing sustainability issues, such as the workforce crisis.

According to a recent report by Wolters Kluwer Health, there is a great deal of interest in using GenAI to solve the present problems of burnout, high healthcare costs, rising administrative burdens, and a shortage of workers. There is also a strong desire to use GenAI to advance innovation and efficiency throughout the organization.

The information, which was gathered from a poll of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, allied health professionals, and administrators, revealed a glaring discrepancy between what organizations claim they hope to accomplish using GenAI and their level of readiness to fulfill that commitment.

For example, according to the survey, just 63% of respondents feel ready to use GenAI to optimize workflows, despite the fact that 80% of respondents listed this as a priority organizational aim.

Greg Samios, CEO of Wolters Kluwer Health, stated that “GenAI has the potential to be a powerful tool for supporting sustainability in healthcare organizations right now, as well as preparing them for a more efficient future.”

“Creating a strategy that can both maximize the current situation in a very unstable market and give organizations the digital capabilities they require to stay competitive over the coming years is the problem. Organizations currently run the risk of lagging behind if they don’t adopt a more unified strategy to standardize, scale, and affect GenAI” he added.

According to the report, GenAI-driven technologies are expected to contribute to the resolution of long-standing issues, including prior authorization burdens (67%), electronic health record (EHR) management (62%), cybersecurity readiness (68%), and telehealth/virtual care program support (65%).

However, just one in five survey participants said they were compelled to attend structured training, and only 18% were aware of official organizational regulations controlling the use of GenAI.

Consequently, over half (57%) think that clinical decision-making abilities could be compromised by an excessive dependence on GenAI. According to the research, 55% of respondents are worried that a lack of clarity surrounding GenAI’s possible role in diagnosis could lead to ambiguous justifications for decisions that directly affect patients.