Importance: The US healthcare system faces significant challenges, including clinician burnout, operational inefficiencies, and concerns about patient safety. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, has the potential to address these challenges, but its adoption, effectiveness, and barriers to implementation are not well understood. Objective: To evaluate the current state of AI adoption in US healthcare systems, assess successes and barriers to implementation during the early generative AI era. Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional survey was conducted in Fall 2024, and included 67 health systems members of the Scottsdale Institute, a collaborative of US non-profit healthcare organizations. Forty-three health systems completed the survey (64% response rate). Respondents provided data on the deployment status and perceived success of 37 AI use cases across 10 categories. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcomes were the extent of AI use case development, piloting, or deployment, the degree of reported success for AI use cases, and the most significant barriers to adoption. Results: Across the 43 responding health systems, AI adoption and perceptions of success varied significantly. Ambient Notes, a generative AI tool for clinical documentation, was the only use case with 100% of respondents reporting adoption activities, and 53% reported a high degree of success with using AI for Clinical Documentation. Imaging and radiology emerged as the most widely deployed clinical AI use case, with 90% of organizations reporting at least partial deployment, although successes with diagnostic use cases were limited. Similarly, many organizations have deployed AI for clinical risk stratification such as early sepsis detection, but only 38% report high success in this area. Immature AI tools were identified a significant barrier to adoption, cited by 77% of respondents, followed by financial concerns (47%) and regulatory uncertainty (40%). Conclusions and relevance: Ambient Notes is rapidly advancing in US healthcare systems and demonstrating early success. Other AI use cases show varying degrees of adoption and success, constrained by barriers such as immature AI tools, financial concerns, and regulatory uncertainty. Addressing these challenges through robust evaluations, shared strategies, and governance models will be essential to ensure effective integration and adoption of AI into healthcare practice.

Rationale: Patients transferred from the intensive care unit to the wards who are later readmitted to the intensive care unit have increased length of stay, healthcare expenditure, and mortality compared with those who are never readmitted. Improving risk stratification for patients transferred to the wards could have important benefits for critically ill hospitalized patients. Objectives: We aimed to use a machine-learning technique to derive and validate an intensive care unit readmission prediction model with variables available in the electronic health record in real time and compare it to previously published algorithms. Methods: This observational cohort study was conducted at an academic hospital in the United States with approximately 600 inpatient beds. A total of 24,885 intensive care unit transfers to the wards were included, with 14,962 transfers (60%) in the training cohort and 9,923 transfers (40%) in the internal validation cohort. Patient characteristics, nursing assessments, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes from prior admissions, medications, intensive care unit interventions, diagnostic tests, vital signs, and laboratory results were extracted from the electronic health record and used as predictor variables in a gradient-boosted machine model. Accuracy for predicting intensive care unit readmission was compared with the Stability and Workload Index for Transfer score and Modified Early Warning Score in the internal validation cohort and also externally using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care database (n = 42,303 intensive care unit transfers). Results: Eleven percent (2,834) of discharges to the wards were later readmitted to the intensive care unit. The machine-learning–derived model had significantly better performance (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.76) than either the Stability and Workload Index for Transfer score (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65), or Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.58; P value < 0.0001 for all comparisons). At a specificity of 95%, the derived model had a sensitivity of 28% compared with 15% for Stability and Workload Index for Transfer score and 7% for the Modified Early Warning Score. Accuracy improvements with the derived model over Modified Early Warning Score and Stability and Workload Index for Transfer were similar in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III cohort. Conclusions: A machine learning approach to predicting intensive care unit readmission was significantly more accurate than previously published algorithms in both our internal validation and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III cohort. Implementation of this approach could target patients who may benefit from additional time in the intensive care unit or more frequent monitoring after transfer to the hospital ward.

SARS-CoV-2 and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic has affected more than 106 million people worldwide with more than 2.31 million deaths as of February 2021.¹ Upon the emergency use authorization for a COVID-19 vaccine by the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine developed an overarching framework to assist US policy makers in planning for equitable allocation of COVID-19 vaccines.² Minority populations have approximately 5 times greater risk of adverse COVID-19 consequences related to social determinants of health that may exacerbate patient comorbidities.^4,6 Equitable distribution would eliminate vaccination disparities while mitigating the disproportionate effect of the COVID-19 pandemic in underserved populations, which are disadvantaged because of limited access to health care, low socioeconomic status, or race. This study aims to determine how every state planned to ensure equitable vaccine distribution.

The healthcare sector is rapidly integrating artificial intelligence-derived predictive models (AIDPM) to enhance clinical decision support, operational efficiency, and patient experiences. However, research on management strategies for AIDPM acquisition, deployment, and governance remains limited. This study examines changes in AIDPM integration and governance since 2021, with a particular focus on large language models and health equity considerations. Our survey of health system leaders achieved a 49% response rate (32/65). While 84% of institutions reported using AIDPM in clinical practice, only 53% had established dedicated teams for these models. Compared to 2021, there was a significant increase in representation from experts in clinical informatics, operations, and quality improvement on AIDPM teams. Most organizations (41%) primarily purchased AIDPM from external vendors. Support for integrating large language models into healthcare practices was unanimous among respondents. The principal obstacles to AIDPM adoption included regulatory concerns, data security, workflow integration, and clinician acceptance. A large majority (72%) of respondents supported government regulation of AI in healthcare. While 76% of organizations reported having a team member dedicated to health equity, ethicists and diversity leaders were underrepresented on AIDPM teams (18%). Organizations reported various efforts to promote health equity, but involvement of frontline clinicians in AIDPM development and its impact on health equity was significantly less common. Clinical adoption of AIDPM faces challenges due to the absence of established best practices. Health system leaders strongly support federal regulations for AI in healthcare. These regulations could provide quality and safety standards. The study highlights the need for developing evaluation guidelines, especially for large language models. It also reveals a lack of uniform involvement of frontline clinicians and equity experts in AIDPM governance. Their involvement could increase adoption and trust of these new AI tools. Future research should assess healthcare systems' adherence to emerging regulations and best practice frameworks. This research should emphasize patient safety and health equity. These findings underscore the urgent need for a comprehensive roadmap. This roadmap would guide the responsible implementation of AIDPM in healthcare settings.