Skip to main content
JMIR AI logoLink to JMIR AI
. 2026 May 11;5:e77393. doi: 10.2196/77393

Unlocking the Full Potential of Health Care Teams: How Artificial Intelligence Can Help

Manchi (Monica) Hsu 1,✉, Benny Bikash Pokharel 1, Jacqueline Kueper 2, Michaela Kerrissey 3, Sian Hsiang-Te Tsuei 4,5
Editor: Khaled El Emam
PMCID: PMC13160488  PMID: 42114059

Abstract

Developing effective health care teams is critical to meet the rising complexity in patient care. However, optimizing team composition, interpersonal dynamics, and care processes in complex health care systems requires processing vast amounts of data that capture fluid interactions among professionals—a task that has been cumbersome, costly, and avoided by most organizations. Well-designed artificial intelligence (AI) tools can meaningfully advance the frontier of health care teamwork, but the application of AI in this regard has been lagging. To support this development, we outline the potential for AI to help optimize team composition, strengthen norms and relationships among professionals, and standardize team-based clinical care processes. These applications can improve the integration of health care teams. Given the importance of relevant data for realizing such advances, we describe the potential types and sources of data that can support AI development. Furthermore, we highlight enabling strategies, including data-sharing alliances and leadership engagement to address privacy, interoperability, and ethical considerations. We propose a sequenced roadmap for piloting these applications based on technological readiness and clinical feasibility, ensuring that human oversight remains central as AI tools are introduced into complex care environments.

Introduction

Amid growing patient complexity, health professionals must increasingly rely on one another to deliver integrated, high-quality care [1]. Patients with multiple chronic illnesses often require care from a network of specialized providers—and more than 50% of the Canadian population aged 65 years and older have multimorbidity [2]. They may visit as many as 16 different clinicians in a single year, spanning multiple roles and care venues [3]. At the same time, a typical primary care physician will interact annually with 229 other physicians across 117 practices while managing 1200 to 1900 patients [4]. This presents a daunting coordination environment, and because of its complexity, teamwork has been vexingly difficult for health care organizations to efficiently and effectively improve.

The very complexity and distributed interdependence that make teams attractive for health care environments also make them difficult to define and implement in practice. However, organizational leaders often lack the time and cognitive capacity to optimize the design and operation of such teams because the team composition and tasks are often fluid and complex.

Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques and tools can help improve the design and operations of health care teams. Throughout this paper, we use “AI” as an umbrella term referring to a set of technologies including machine learning and deep learning, artificial neural networks, natural language processing, generative AI including large language models, and agentic AI systems. We exclude rule-based expert systems, physical robots, and robotic process automation [5]. The methods we consider in scope are included in 2 papers cited here [6,7] for readers who are interested.

Although AI tools have been introduced in many clinical areas [8], their application to arranging and organizing labor in health care remains largely untapped. Previous literature has largely focused on 2 separate domains. The work on teamwork in health care has examined the importance of organizational structures, collaboration, norms, and leadership styles without systematically drawing on AI tools [9-12]. On the flipside, AI development has largely focused on tools that directly influence administrative, academic, and clinical tasks, without directly influencing the team structure, dynamics, and operations [13-15]. At the intersection of these 2 topics lies a novel field of research that is needed to explore the role of AI in improving teamwork in health care.

Given the myriad ways AI may help team development, we drew on empirical and theoretical literature on care integration to focus on three key AI applications to health care teams: (1) optimizing team composition, (2) strengthening norms and relationships among professionals, and (3) standardizing team-based clinical care processes [1,16]. To illustrate the feasibility, we describe data sources (Table 1) and target tasks for AI techniques to unlock these 3 applications. We also suggest that data-sharing alliances—perhaps strengthened with federated learning or horizontal integration programs—may facilitate access to the necessary data for training AI models. When such applications become realized, ensuring that humans maintain the autonomy to interpret and implement the AI recommendations is also ethical and practical.

Table 1. Overview of data sources for artificial intelligence–driven team optimization.

Steps (definition) and dimensions captured Data sources and examples
Application 1: identify optimal team members to care for target patient population
 Patient needs
  • EMRa: demographics, comorbidities, visit records, geographic data

 Provider characteristics
  • Employment registry: provider demographics, training history, caseload records

 Teamwork effectiveness
  • EMR: patient outcomes

  • Validated survey of team performanceb [17]

 Care outcomes
  • EMR: lab results, dates of patient-provider interactions, treatment records

Application 2: integrate new team members to cultivate effective organizational culture
 Provider preferences
  • EMR and voice recordings: provider-patient and provider-provider interactions.

  • Validated surveys of personalities and preferencesb [18-20]

 Organizational culture
Application 3: standardize clinical decisions to improve care quality and efficiency
 Clinical status
  • EMR: date, time, and results from patient-provider conversations, physical exams, lab tests, and imaging

 Clinical decisions
  • EMR: treatment orders, care protocols

 Patient-generated health data
  • Wearable devices, home monitoring devices, mobile tracking apps

a

EMR: electronic medical record.

b

The surveys are listed in Multimedia Appendix 1 [17-21] and have demonstrated good psychometric properties.

c

Most surveys target the respondents’ view of the organizations. Wording may need to be adjusted to capture individual respondent’s views of themselves, which can then be analyzed to understand the respondents’ fit with each other.

Application 1: Optimizing Team Composition

Because a patient’s care is often spread across units and shifts over time [11], observing and measuring the relationship between team composition and performance can be challenging. Without clearly defining such relationships, promptly optimizing team composition becomes problematic, which limits health care quality [22].

Training AI models to provide timely recommendations of appropriate members for a given patient’s care team requires learning relationships between the clinical environment, patient needs, and indicators of successful team performance. Not only can such research identify latent patterns driving referrals, but also researchers are directly piloting when multidisciplinary, proactive electronic consultations can be helpful. In 2 instances, proactive AI-driven predictions regarding the need for palliative care consultations improved access to palliative care while reducing subsequent hospitalizations [23,24]. Furthermore, a large quantity of relevant data is already available. For example, input variables may include existing and potential new provider profiles and patient clinical history including demographics, morbidities, and past experiences with providers from electronic medical records (EMRs). Outcome variables may include care performance based on EMR-derived metrics and team functions from validated surveys [17,25-27,undefined,undefined]. Users and experts can further refine the output based on disease-specific guidelines.

Within an episode of care, updated patient information in EMRs can dynamically adjust their optimal care team structure, potentially automating the consult process for relevant specialties. For instance, a patient admitted for pneumonia may initially only require a general internist, but if blood pressure drops precipitously, the AI tool may send out automatic alerts to engage an intensivist with tailored patient summaries that streamline the handoff process. Such AI tools may even discern the best person within a specialty to involve based on previous team-based interactions and care quality outcomes [26,27].

Beyond supporting individual patient care team assignment, patient panel data in EMRs can project health care needs [28-31], which can inform proactive workforce planning [26,27].

Application 2: Strengthening Norms and Relationships Among Professionals

As health care teams expand to address varied and complex patient needs, aligning providers’ values and communication norms is essential for effective coordination and decision-making [1]. However, meaningfully, promptly, and systematically acculturating new members can be challenging given the financial and cognitive barriers facing purely human-led efforts.

AI tools can build on existing approaches to help identify the underlying organizational culture, team climate, and individual behavior within teams [12,32,33]. Such work has historically relied on time-consuming manual qualitative coding and quantification or numeric scale survey instruments that can be biased and context inappropriate. EMRs and recordings of providers’ interactions with patients and providers can reveal a team’s underlying attitude and preferences, in addition to past safety events and interpersonal conflicts [34,35]. Validated survey instruments can also supplement the identification of underlying personalities and preferences. Furthermore, AI tools can efficiently generate summarized versions of these organizational culture and climate factors for teams to consider potential improvements [36,37]. Further still, such discussions can be enhanced using currently available AI tools that introduce new members to effective communication skills [38,39]. Recent empirical studies on TeamVision, an AI-enhanced multimodal analytics platform, piloted the idea of capturing team dynamics using AI-powered tools into data-informed debriefs that can improve team cohesion and communication. This platform captures voice presence, automated transcripts, spatial orientation, and team interactions during health care simulations to identify communication patterns in real time. This was deployed across 56 teams (221 students) in a nursing curriculum. Both learners and educators rated the system as useful and trustworthy for strengthening relational dynamics [40].

AI-based onboarding is also generating momentum, although not yet widely applied [41]. AI tools can help analyze new members’ personalities and preferences based on surveys and previous patient interactions. Customized simulation exercises can then help new members align with the team [42].

Application 3: Standardizing Clinical Care Processes

Despite clinical guidelines’ supposed benefits, clinicians may voluntarily or inadvertently reject guideline recommendations [43,44]. These situations can lead to confusion and problematic variation across care teams where individual clinicians exhibit highly varying practice patterns. Standardizing clinical processes on demand can set a floor for care quality and efficiency, but its effectiveness is limited by the constant human oversight required to implement them well.

EMRs already help to standardize clinical workflow via clinical decision support systems that codify clinical decisions, allowing different care providers to understand and continue subsequent care delivery. Furthermore, many AI tools already use EMR and multimodal data for pattern identification and risk predictions, ranging from disease progression and clinical care complications to treatment outcomes [45-51]. EMR data can capture patient needs in demographics, diagnoses, tests, and images; clinical interventions in drugs, procedures, and psychotherapies; and clinical outcomes in tests and images. Even more up-to-date insights into a patient’s health status can leverage patient-generated data from wearable devices, home monitoring devices, and mobile tracking apps [52-61].

AI tools may recommend preventative actions, disease management courses, and diagnostic recommendations based on up-to-date patient information and clinical guidelines. If multiple providers can consistently access the AI recommendations, care standardization may improve alongside better care coordination and minimize information loss.

Recent large-scale empirical studies demonstrate that AI-assisted decision support can meaningfully improve adherence to evidence-based care while reducing variability and diagnostic errors. In a prospective study spanning 39,849 primary care visits across 15 clinics in Nairobi, an AI consult tool provided real-time background diagnostic support. Clinicians using the tool experienced substantial error reductions in taking history (32%), ordering investigations (10%), diagnosing (16%), and treating (13%), and improvements persisted throughout the study period [62].

Implications

In what follows, we discuss the practical and ethical implications of applying AI to teamwork in health care. We start with the need for relevant data, highlighting the importance of and policy supports for data-sharing alliances. We then describe how the data need to be adjusted to achieve optimal results and end with a discussion of ethical implications.

Practical Need for Data-Sharing Alliance

Large datasets that capture sufficient variability will be key for AI tools to learn reliable and useful patterns. Smaller health care organizations with limited information management capabilities, little patient variability, and few employees may have difficulty generating such datasets independently. Three solutions may encourage the development of data-sharing alliances in the current landscape where data are prized as a valuable resource.

First, federated learning enables health care organizations to collaborate on AI model development by maintaining control over their own data without pooling sensitive patient data into a single location, thereby addressing data privacy concerns. Each organization keeps its data securely on-site while sharing only model updates, so the combined system learns from all participants [63]. For instance, this approach is used by the Mayo Clinic Platform Connect and has proven to be successful in generating a prediction model forecasting patient responses to chemotherapy [64].

Second, accountable care organization policy encourages integration across health care organizations. Financial subsidies can incentivize uniform infrastructure standards or regulatory safe harbors for innovation pilots [65]. For example, they can also drive data sharing by adopting interoperability standards like Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), which outlines a set of data formats and elements for digital health data transfer,

Third, strengthening health care organization leaders’ trust, appreciation, and context-appropriate adaptation of AI tools’ capacity for informing teamwork will be crucial. Executive champions can set organizational priorities, allocate resources, and communicate a clear vision for AI adoption. Structured change management strategies—including clinician training on digital literacy, iterative feedback loops, and transparent communication—help build trust and facilitate culture change across clinical teams. Finally, multidisciplinary governance committees can integrate ethical oversight, technical standards, and clinical priorities into operational and clinical decision-making, ensuring that AI implementation remains accountable, safe, and sustainable over time.

Practical Nuances for Data Considerations

For AI tools to provide up-to-date recommendations on team compositions, the data need to reflect day-to-day changes in patient acuity and clinician availability. AI developers will need to optimize how frequently to update the data to best reflect real-time clinical needs and clinician resources (eg, caseload and emergent expertise) without driving alert fatigue or administrative burnout.

Given the potential for AI tools to consider diverse types of variables, ensuring that multiple outcomes are assessed and incorporated into the models can be helpful. For example, AI developers can parameterize care continuity to minimize care disruptions alongside other variables that may affect care quality.

Practical Considerations on Adoption Resistance

Integrating new technology into existing workflows can face considerable resistance [66]. The range of factors can include—but are not limited to—concern over loss of power, past experiences of novel technologies, and general resistance to change. Integration of AI tools into teamwork in health care can reveal similar challenges [67] and may especially present concerns about surveillance and privacy in work interactions. These challenges require thoughtful AI implementation strategies that take team members’ concerns seriously and seek to address them. This can include transparent communication from leadership, engagement of frontline voices in tool development and testing, and responsive governance structures. These efforts may be enhanced by (1) focusing on common values, (2) fostering collaborative vision, (3) garnering buy-in around the technology, and (4) supporting psychological safety [68,69]. Targeted training, incentives, and ongoing workflow adjustments would be key to supporting additional uptake [68]. Finally, given the complex ethical and legal risks around AI, providing a well-developed legal and ethical framework would also minimize associated anxiety regarding AI use [68].

Ethical Considerations Around Human Oversight and Insight

The applications outlined previously show that AI can inform team-based care, but ultimately, teamwork is a human process. This has both ethical and practical implications [70].

First, because AI tools used in team-based care directly shape human work experiences, health professionals must retain the autonomy to accept, refine, or reject AI-generated recommendations. However, this autonomy may be problematic due to the phenomenon of automation bias—the tendency to overrely on algorithmic outputs even when flawed. Users may mechanically adhere to AI recommendations without critical engagement [71]. Helping health care providers develop the relevant skills to safely use AI for clinical work may require time and investment.

Second, AI systems trained on historical data risk propagating structural biases, particularly if marginalized groups are underrepresented in training datasets [72]. Without careful development, evaluation, and oversight, these biases could influence team composition, decision-making hierarchies, and ultimately patient outcomes, reinforcing existing power asymmetries within health care [73]. Explicit attention to this potential for bias requires reviewing and critically assessing model output for bias potential.

Third, questions of responsibility and liability arise when AI recommendations shape team-based decisions, but final accountability remains with clinicians [74]. Clear governance structures and continuous evaluation processes are therefore essential to delineate professional responsibility, ensure transparency, and maintain trust.

Fourth, the impact on professional roles must be considered: while AI can standardize workflows and enhance efficiency, it could also shift authority from clinicians to algorithm developers or organizational leaders, reshaping professional boundaries in ways that demand scrutiny [75].

Finally, because teamwork involves interpretation, negotiation, and shared responsibility, AI-generated recommendations should be seen not as prescriptive directives but as tools to initiate dialogue—surfacing problems, questions, and options for deeper engagement rather than replacing human judgment.

Conclusions

Despite efforts to enhance team-based care, humans are inherently limited by the quantity of data they can meaningfully experience and analyze. AI tools can leverage the considerable data that human interactions in complex health care systems generate to help optimize team composition, improve interpersonal interactions, and standardize care processes. Given the current lack of empirical data and systematic synthesis on this topic, this paper conceptually frames the discussion around leveraging AI tools to improve team-based care. This can motivate further inquiry, and we offer tangible recommendations about how such work can proceed, based on technological readiness.

The varying approaches offer different opportunities for a variety of groups. Policymakers can draw on evidence around privacy, ethics, and related concerns to develop legislation, regulations, guidelines, and incentives. Practitioners play a key role by engaging with policymakers and organizations to codevelop pilot initiatives and provide feedback on feasibility and impact. Meanwhile, AI developers can build into their tools interoperable elements while adhering to emerging policies.

Finally, sequencing these applications according to technological readiness and clinical need may be helpful. In the short term, standardizing clinical processes is immediately actionable, as AI-assisted order sets and decision support tools have already demonstrated significant value [76,77]. In the midterm, optimizing team compositions can be operationalized by leveraging existing datasets such as bed management dashboards and scheduling tools. Targeted pilots may provide early evidence of feasibility and impact. Strengthening norms and relationships may be a longer-term goal, given the ethical, cultural, and privacy challenges of collecting and analyzing interpersonal data within health care teams.

Supplementary material

Multimedia Appendix 1. Validated surveys for artificial intelligence–driven team optimization.
ai-v5-e77393-s001.docx (20.9KB, docx)
DOI: 10.2196/77393

Abbreviations

AI

artificial intelligence

EMR

electronic medical record

FHIR

Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources

Footnotes

Funding: This study was funded by Michael Smith Health Research BC Research Trainee Award (RT-2023-3307).

Conflicts of Interest: JK consults on topics related to artificial intelligence (AI) in health care. No financial compensation was provided for work on this manuscript. SH-TT serves as a member of the AI Advisory Council for The College of Family Physicians of Canada. SH-TT is also an associate editor of JMIR Medical Education. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Singer SJ, Kerrissey M, Friedberg M, Phillips R. A comprehensive theory of integration. Med Care Res Rev. 2020 Apr;77(2):196–207. doi: 10.1177/1077558718767000. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Health reports. Government of Canada. 2025. [14-04-2026]. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/82-003-x2025003-eng.htm URL. Accessed.
  • 3.Pham HH, Schrag D, O’Malley AS, Wu B, Bach PB. Care patterns in Medicare and their implications for pay for performance. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 15;356(11):1130–1139. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa063979. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pham HH, O’Malley AS, Bach PB, Saiontz-Martinez C, Schrag D. Primary care physicians’ links to other physicians through Medicare patients: the scope of care coordination. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Feb 17;150(4):236–242. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-4-200902170-00004. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Davenport T, Kalakota R. The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthc J. 2019 Jun;6(2):94–98. doi: 10.7861/futurehosp.6-2-94. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Howell MD, Corrado GS, DeSalvo KB. Three epochs of artificial intelligence in health care. JAMA. 2024 Jan 16;331(3):242–244. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.25057. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Angus DC, Khera R, Lieu T, et al. AI, health, and health care today and tomorrow: the JAMA Summit report on artificial intelligence. JAMA. 2025 Nov 11;334(18):1650–1664. doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.18490. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Alowais SA, Alghamdi SS, Alsuhebany N, et al. Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice. BMC Med Educ. 2023 Sep 22;23(1):689. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04698-z. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Singer SJ, Kerrissey MJ. Leading health care teams beyond Covid-19: marking the moment and shifting from recuperation to regeneration. NEJM Catal. 2021 Jul 27; doi: 10.1056/CAT.21.0169. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Satterstrom P, Kerrissey M, DiBenigno J. The voice cultivation process: how team members can help upward voice live on to implementation. Adm Sci Q. 2020;66(2):380–425. doi: 10.1177/0001839220962795. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kerrissey MJ, Satterstrom P, Edmondson AC. Into the fray: adaptive approaches to studying novel teamwork forms. Organ Psychol Rev. 2020;10(2):62–86. doi: 10.1177/2041386620912833. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kerrissey M, Novikov Z. Joint problem-solving orientation, mutual value recognition, and performance in fluid teamwork environments. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1288904. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1288904. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sasseville M, Yousefi F, Ouellet S, et al. The impact of AI scribes on streamlining clinical documentation: a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel) 2025 Jun 16;13(12):1447. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13121447. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel) 2023 Mar 19;11(6):887. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11060887. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lu MY, Chen B, Williamson DF, et al. A visual-language foundation model for computational pathology. Nat Med. 2024 Mar;30(3):863–874. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-02856-4. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ridgely MS, Buttorff C, Wolf LJ, et al. The importance of understanding and measuring health system structural, functional, and clinical integration. Health Serv Res. 2020 Dec;55 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):1049–1061. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13582. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Valentine MA, Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC. Measuring teamwork in health care settings: a review of survey instruments. Med Care. 2015 Apr;53(4):e16–e30. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827feef6. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Baker DP, Amodeo AM, Krokos KJ, Slonim A, Herrera H. Assessing teamwork attitudes in healthcare: development of the TeamSTEPPS teamwork attitudes questionnaire. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Dec;19(6):e49. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.036129. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Marsh HW, Lüdtke O, Muthén B, et al. A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychol Assess. 2010 Sep;22(3):471–491. doi: 10.1037/a0019227. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Heinemann GD, Schmitt MH, Farrell MP, Brallier SA. Development of an attitudes toward health care teams Scale. Eval Health Prof. 1999 Mar;22(1):123–142. doi: 10.1177/01632789922034202. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Scott T, Mannion R, Davies H, Marshall M. The quantitative measurement of organizational culture in health care: a review of the available instruments. Health Serv Res. 2003 Jun;38(3):923–945. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00154. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ayanian JZ, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Gaccione P. Specialty of ambulatory care physicians and mortality among elderly patients after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 21;347(21):1678–1686. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa020080. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.He JC, Moffat GT, Podolsky S, et al. Machine learning to allocate palliative care consultations during cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2024 May 10;42(14):1625–1634. doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01291. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wilson PM, Ramar P, Philpot LM, et al. Effect of an artificial intelligence decision support tool on palliative care referral in hospitalized patients: a randomized clinical trial. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2023 Jul;66(1):24–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2023.02.317. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vleminckx S, Van Bogaert P, De Meulenaere K, Willem L, Haegdorens F. Factors influencing the formation of balanced care teams: the organisation, performance, and perception of nursing care teams and the link with patient outcomes: a systematic scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Sep 27;24(1):1129. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11625-5. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Adler-Milstein J, Adelman JS, Tai-Seale M, Patel VL, Dymek C. EHR audit logs: a new goldmine for health services research? J Biomed Inform. 2020 Jan;101:103343. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103343. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rose C, Thombley R, Noshad M, et al. Team is brain: leveraging EHR audit log data for new insights into acute care processes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022 Dec 13;30(1):8–15. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac201. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Twick I, Zahavi G, Benvenisti H, et al. Towards interpretable, medically grounded, EMR-based risk prediction models. Sci Rep. 2022 Jun 15;12:9990. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13504-7. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mahmoudi E, Kamdar N, Kim N, Gonzales G, Singh K, Waljee AK. Use of electronic medical records in development and validation of risk prediction models of hospital readmission: systematic review. BMJ. 2020 Apr 8;369:m958. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m958. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Xiao C, Choi E, Sun J. Opportunities and challenges in developing deep learning models using electronic health records data: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Oct 1;25(10):1419–1428. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy068. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Amirahmadi A, Ohlsson M, Etminani K. Deep learning prediction models based on EHR trajectories: a systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2023 Aug;144:104430. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104430. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Corritore M, Goldberg A, Srivastava SB. Duality in diversity: how intrapersonal and interpersonal cultural heterogeneity relate to firm performance. [14-04-2026];Adm Sci Q. 2020 65(2):359–394. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/duality-diversity-how-intrapersonal-interpersonal-cultural URL. Accessed. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Schachner M, Ardag MM, Holtz P, et al. Extracting organizational culture from text: the development and validation of a theory-driven tool for digital data. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2024;33(5):571–582. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2024.2360225. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Manzo G, Celi LA, Shabazz Y, Mulcahey R, Flores LJ, Demner-Fushman D. Caregivers attitude detection from clinical notes. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2024;2023:1125–1134. Medline. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Himmelstein G, Bates D, Zhou L. Examination of stigmatizing language in the electronic health record. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jan 4;5(1):e2144967. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44967. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Alvesson M, Sveningsson S. Changing Organizational Culture: Cultural Change Work in Progress. 2nd. Routledge; 2015. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Warrick DD. What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Bus Horiz. 2017;60(3):395–404. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2017.01.011. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Liaw SY, Tan JZ, Lim S, et al. Artificial intelligence in virtual reality simulation for interprofessional communication training: mixed method study. Nurse Educ Today. 2023 Mar;122:105718. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105718. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Argyle LP, Bail CA, Busby EC, et al. Leveraging AI for democratic discourse: chat interventions can improve online political conversations at scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Oct 10;120(41):e2311627120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2311627120. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Echeverria V, Zhao L, Alfredo R, et al. TeamVision: an AI-powered learning analytics system for supporting reflection in team-based healthcare simulation. CHI ’25: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Apr 26 to May 1, 2025; Yokohama, Japan. Presented at. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Votto AM, Valecha R, Najafirad P, Rao HR. Artificial intelligence in tactical human resource management: a systematic literature review. Int J Inf Manage Data Insights. 2021 Nov;1(2):100047. doi: 10.1016/j.jjimei.2021.100047. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ritz E, Donisi F, Elshan E, Rietsche R. Artificial socialization? How artificial intelligence applications can shape a new era of employee onboarding practices. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; Jan 3-6, 2023; Maui, HI. Presented at. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Baiardini I, Braido F, Bonini M, Compalati E, Canonica GW. Why do doctors and patients not follow guidelines? Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009 Jun;9(3):228–233. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e32832b4651. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999 Oct 20;282(15):1458–1465. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ferrara M, Bertozzi G, Di Fazio N, et al. Risk management and patient safety in the artificial intelligence era: a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel) 2024 Feb 27;12(5):549. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12050549. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Goh KH, Wang L, Yeow AY, et al. Artificial intelligence in sepsis early prediction and diagnosis using unstructured data in healthcare. Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 29;12(1):711. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-20910-4. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Soenksen LR, Ma Y, Zeng C, et al. Integrated multimodal artificial intelligence framework for healthcare applications. NPJ Digit Med. 2022 Sep 20;5(1):149. doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00689-4. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Tong L, Shi W, Isgut M, et al. Integrating multi-omics data with EHR for precision medicine using advanced artificial intelligence. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2024;17:80–97. doi: 10.1109/RBME.2023.3324264. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ghaffar Nia N, Kaplanoglu E, Nasab A. Evaluation of artificial intelligence techniques in disease diagnosis and prediction. Discov Artif Intell. 2023;3(1):5. doi: 10.1007/s44163-023-00049-5. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Yu KH, Beam AL, Kohane IS. Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nat Biomed Eng. 2018 Oct;2(10):719–731. doi: 10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wasserman RL, Edrees HH, Seger DL, et al. Development of a drug allergy alert tiering algorithm for penicillins and cephalosporins. Int J Med Inform. 2025 Mar;195:105789. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.105789. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Witt D, Kellogg R, Snyder M, Dunn J. Windows into human health through wearables data analytics. Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2019 Mar;9:28–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cobme.2019.01.001. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Dellinger EP. Patient-directed active surgical incisions surveillance may lead to further surgical site infection reduction. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2019 Oct;20(7):584–587. doi: 10.1089/sur.2019.163. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Peake JM, Kerr G, Sullivan JP. A critical review of consumer wearables, mobile applications, and equipment for providing biofeedback, monitoring stress, and sleep in physically active populations. Front Physiol. 2018;9:743. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00743. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Peyroteo M, Ferreira IA, Elvas LB, Ferreira JC, Lapão LV. Remote monitoring systems for patients with chronic diseases in primary health care: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Dec 21;9(12):e28285. doi: 10.2196/28285. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bashi N, Karunanithi M, Fatehi F, Ding H, Walters D. Remote monitoring of patients with heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 20;19(1):e18. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6571. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Philip NY, Rodrigues J, Wang H, Fong SJ, Chen J. Internet of things for in-home health monitoring systems: current advances, challenges and future directions. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun. 2021 Feb;39(2):300–310. doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2020.3042421. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hackelöer M, Schmidt L, Verlohren S. New advances in prediction and surveillance of preeclampsia: role of machine learning approaches and remote monitoring. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023 Dec;308(6):1663–1677. doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06864-y. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Rohmetra H, Raghunath N, Narang P, Chamola V, Guizani M, Lakkaniga NR. AI-enabled remote monitoring of vital signs for COVID-19: methods, prospects and challenges. Computing. 2021;105(4):783–809. doi: 10.1007/s00607-021-00937-7. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Taylor ML, Thomas EE, Snoswell CL, Smith AC, Caffery LJ. Does remote patient monitoring reduce acute care use? A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 2;11(3):e040232. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040232. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Del Din S, Kirk C, Yarnall AJ, Rochester L, Hausdorff JM. Body-worn sensors for remote monitoring of Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms: vision, state of the art, and challenges ahead. J Parkinsons Dis. 2021;11(s1):S35–S47. doi: 10.3233/JPD-202471. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Korom R, Kiptinness S, Adan N, Said K, Ithuli C, Rotich O, et al. AI-based clinical decision support for primary care: a real-world study. arXiv. 2025 Jul 22; doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.16947. Preprint posted online on. doi. [DOI]
  • 63.Yurdem B, Kuzlu M, Gullu MK, Catak FO, Tabassum M. Federated learning: overview, strategies, applications, tools and future directions. Heliyon. 2024 Sep 20;10(19):e38137. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38137. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Halamka J. Exploring a federated approach to data management. Mayo Clinic Platform. 2023. [14-04-2026]. https://www.mayoclinicplatform.org/2023/09/14/exploring-a-federated-approach-to-data-management/ URL. Accessed.
  • 65.Trombley MJ, Fout B, Brodsky S, McWilliams JM, Nyweide DJ, Morefield B. Early effects of an accountable care organization model for underserved areas. N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 8;381(6):543–551. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1816660. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Laumer S, Eckhardt A. In: Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society. Dwivedi YK, Wade MR, Schneberger SL, editors. Springer; 2012. Why do people reject technologies: a review of user resistance theories; pp. 63–86. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Muller SH, van Delden JJ, van Thiel GJ, Hypermarker Consortium Towards responsible surveillance in preventive health data-AI research. PLOS Digit Health. 2025 Dec;4(12):e0001146. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001146. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Nair M, Svedberg P, Larsson I, Nygren JM. A comprehensive overview of barriers and strategies for AI implementation in healthcare: mixed-method design. PLoS One. 2024;19(8):e0305949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305949. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kerrissey MJ, Hayirli TC, Bhanja A, Stark N, Hardy J, Peabody CR. How psychological safety and feeling heard relate to burnout and adaptation amid uncertainty. Health Care Manage Rev. 2022;47(4):308–316. doi: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000338. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Corfmat M, Martineau JT, Régis C. High-reward, high-risk technologies? An ethical and legal account of AI development in healthcare. BMC Med Ethics. 2025 Jan 15;26(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01158-1. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Goddard K, Roudsari A, Wyatt JC. Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(1):121–127. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Ntoutsi E, Fafalios P, Gadiraju U, et al. Bias in data‐driven artificial intelligence systems—an introductory survey. WIREs Data Min Knowl Discovery. 2020;10(3):e1356. doi: 10.1002/widm.1356. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Nazer LH, Zatarah R, Waldrip S, et al. Bias in artificial intelligence algorithms and recommendations for mitigation. PLOS Digit Health. 2023 Jun;2(6):e0000278. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000278. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Tsuei SH. How are Canadians regulating artificial intelligence for healthcare? A brief analysis of the current legal directions, challenges and deficiencies. Healthc Pap. 2025 Apr;22(4):44–51. doi: 10.12927/hcpap.2025.27571. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Cohen IG, Ajunwa I, Parikh RB. Medical AI and clinician surveillance - the risk of becoming quantified workers. N Engl J Med. 2025 Jun 19;392(23):2289–2291. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2502448. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Lång K, Josefsson V, Larsson AM, et al. Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. Lancet Oncol. 2023 Aug;24(8):936–944. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00298-X. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Tu T, Schaekermann M, Palepu A, et al. Towards conversational diagnostic artificial intelligence. Nature. 2025 Jun;642(8067):442–450. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08866-7. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Multimedia Appendix 1. Validated surveys for artificial intelligence–driven team optimization.
ai-v5-e77393-s001.docx (20.9KB, docx)
DOI: 10.2196/77393

Articles from JMIR AI are provided here courtesy of JMIR Publications Inc.

RESOURCES