How to Identify AI Tools for Doctors That Are Truly Trustworthy

How to Identify AI Tools for Doctors That Are Truly Trustworthy

This Week’s Ownership Mindset: How to Identify AI Tools for Doctors That Are Trustworthy

I have always been an early adopter of technology.

I carried a PalmPilot when most physicians were still using pagers. I moved to the iPhone quickly. I embraced EHR early, not because it was perfect, but because I knew digitization was inevitable. Now I lean into AI the same way.

Not because I am impressed by hype.

Because I believe physicians must shape the tools that will shape medicine.

That instinct is precisely why I built my on-demand urgent care business, ChatRx. I did not want to sit passively while large technology firms inserted opaque systems into clinical workflows. I wanted to govern and harness AI for good in the marketplace. I wanted a physician-designed architecture, not a marketing-driven platform.

That is ownership thinking.

And ownership thinking is what must guide how you evaluate AI tools.

Not every tool marketed to doctors deserves your trust.

Just because a big technology company builds a health-related product does not make it clinically responsible. It makes it funded.

Those are not the same thing.

In my LinkedIN at take this even deeper, and you can read it here: Post Physicians Must Shape AI Before AI Shapes Them

I argue that the first question is not accuracy. It is accountability. You have to ask yourself:

Can you defend this system in a malpractice deposition?

Because when something goes wrong, the algorithm will not sit beside you in court. You will be there alone.

If you think like an employee, you assume someone else vetted the system.

If you think like an owner, you interrogate it yourself.

Let me make this practical.

I use AI tools nearly every day in my business and professional life. That includes ChatGPT, Fathom, Gamma, OpenEvidence, Freed, and Rytr.

I do not use them casually. I use them deliberately.

And I evaluate each one through the same ownership lens.

AI Must Augment Clinical Judgement, Not Impersonate It

ChatGPT is part of my daily workflow. I use it for drafting, ideation, and structured thinking. But I do not outsource judgment to it. It augments my reasoning. It does not replace it. If it produces a clinical framework or business outline, I interrogate it. I refine it. I take responsibility for it.

That is the first principle of trustworthy AI: it must augment clinical judgment, not impersonate it.

If a system sounds like it is thinking for you, it is training you to stop thinking.

Fathom records and summarizes meetings. It increases clarity and recall. But it does not make decisions for me. It does not interpret legal risk. It structures information. That is appropriate scope.

Gamma helps me build presentations quickly. It accelerates formatting and layout. But the ideas remain mine. The message remains mine. Speed is helpful, but ownership of the message is non negotiable.

OpenEvidence is an AI assisted medical literature tool. It is powerful. It surfaces citations quickly. It structures summaries of research. But I still read. I still evaluate. I still apply clinical reasoning. I do not accept an output without context.

Rytr assists with copywriting and structured drafts. Again, helpful for efficiency. But it is bounded. It is a tool, not an author of record.

5 Standards For Trustworthy AI

When I evaluate each of these tools, I apply five standards.

1. First, does the tool clearly augment my judgment rather than attempt to substitute for it?

2. Second, is it explicit about data boundaries? Where is the data stored? Who owns the outputs? What happens if I leave the platform? These are not technical footnotes. They are governance questions. As physicians, we generate extraordinarily valuable data. As entrepreneurs, we understand intellectual property. If an AI vendor cannot articulate data lineage and storage practices in plain language, that is a red flag.

3. Third, is the tool narrow enough to be reliable? The market is flooded with platforms promising to do everything at once. Documentation, triage, billing, analytics, scheduling. Breadth often hides fragility. Clinical medicine demands reliability. I prefer modular tools that are purpose built and tightly scoped.

4. Fourth, is it explainable and auditable? If I cannot interrogate how an output was generated, I cannot responsibly act on it. This principle heavily influenced how we built ChatRx. We embedded condition specific logic, escalation triggers, and physician oversight by design. I did not want a black box that simply produced answers. I wanted a system that could be examined, defended, and governed.

5. Fifth, does the tool create leverage rather than just speed? Speed is seductive. But speed alone does not improve medicine. Does the tool reduce diagnostic blind spots? Does it expand safe access? Or does it simply help you do more administrative churn faster? Acceleration without leverage fuels burnout

Case Study

Let me offer a brief case study.

Dr. Ramirez, name protected, runs a micro corporation in a midsize city. She was evaluating an AI triage assistant marketed aggressively to independent practices.

The demo was polished. The company was well funded. The claims were ambitious.

She asked the ownership questions.

Who is accountable for missed diagnoses?

What data trained this system?

Can I audit its recommendations?

How does it escalate red flags?

The vendor’s answers were vague.

She declined.

Instead, she adopted a narrower AI documentation assistant with clear data policies and transparent scope. She layered it into her workflow carefully. She retained final clinical authority.

Her efficiency improved. Her malpractice carrier approved the workflow. She slept better.

That is ownership.

If you have read my prior essays, you know I consistently push physicians to reclaim marketplace authority, such as Adapting to Marketplace Forces in Medicine: Why Micro-Corporations Preserve Physician Independence

The Battle Is For Your Agency

This AI moment is the same battle, just in a new domain.

If you want to deepen your ownership framework, download my free e book Smart Tech Guide for Lean Physician Practices. Technology decisions should align with your practice values, not distort them.

If you are building a venture or integrating AI into your practice, schedule a PEA Business Strategy Consultation with me. We can examine not only revenue and growth, but governance and risk.

I am not anti technology. In fact, I am strongly pro-technology.

I use a host of AI tools daily and deliver evidence based care powered by AI every day through ChatRx.

But the key is that I use them as tools under physician governance.

If AI is going to reshape medicine, then physicians must shape AI.

You can remain a downstream user.

Or you can become an architect.

I encourage you to think like an owner when you are evaluating technology in your professional life.

Throwback Wisdom

In earlier posts The Creative Mindset: Unlock Your Potential as an Independent Physician I challenged you to reject passive dependency and build your own professional architecture.I encourage you to read more about how you can thrive independently.