Report: Many health care organizations aren’t ready for GenAI

© InfiniteFlow - stock.adobe.com

U.S. health care professionals are eager to use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to solve some of the industry’s deepest problems, including workforce shortages, burnout and administrative overload. But enthusiasm alone won’t close the readiness gap.

The 2025 Future Ready Healthcare Survey Report, released by Wolters Kluwer Health and Ipsos, paints a picture of an industry at an inflection point. Based on feedback from 312 physicians, nurses, administrators and pharmacists across the U.S., the report outlines the high expectations and persistent structural barriers to effective GenAI adoption.

“GenAI has the potential to be a powerful tool for supporting sustainability in health care organizations right now, as well as preparing them for a more efficient future,” said Greg Samios, CEO of Wolters Kluwer Health. “Right now, organizations are at risk of falling behind unless they take a more cohesive approach to making GenAI standardized, scalable and impactful.”

Staffing, burnout and workflow dominate priorities

The top uses for GenAI, according to survey respondents, center on workforce sustainability. Eighty-five percent cited recruited and retaining nursing staff as a key priority. Reducing clinician burnout (76%) and cutting administrative burden from tasks like prior authorizations (67%) and electronic health record (EHR) management (62%) followed closely.

Many clinicians also see potential in advanced use cases like ambient listening, GenAI-powered clinical decision support (CDS) and tools to help automate documentation and communication. But these ambitions are outpacing organizational readiness.

A lack of policy and training

Despite GenAI’s growing presence, only 18% of professionals reported that their organization has published formal policies governing its use. Just 20% said structured training is required. That governance gap is compounded by a perception that tools are being “bolted on” rather than thoughtfully integrated into workflows.

“GenAI delivers durable value only when it is welded to a mapped workflow rather than bolted on as another point solution,” said Matthew Crowson, M.D., director of digital innovation, health research, at Wolters Kluwer Health. “The first job is old-fashioned problem-solving.”

Risks of underprepared deployment

With so few policies in place, concerns about misuse are high. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they worry overreliance on GenAI could erode clinical decision-making. More than half (55%) flagged risks related to transparency, data privacy and a lack of industry standards.

Pharmacists and allied health professionals were most concerned. Nearly three-quarters in those roles cited the potential loss of clinical acumen if GenAI tools are misused or overly trusted.

Personal adoption outpaces professional use

While GenAI is already a part of many professionals’ lives outside of work — 51% of respondents say they use it personally at least once a week — professional use lags behind. Just 42% reported using GenAI at work weekly, while 40% said they’d never used it on the job.

This disparity underscores health care’s chronic lag in adopting emerging technologies, despite often being at the center of innovation conversations.

Where early adoption might work best

The report suggests nursing and pharmacy teams could be key GenAI proving grounds. Pharmacists (52%) and nurses (45%) are the most optimistic about using GenAI to reduce burnout and streamline tasks like data entry and scheduling.

Some also see potential for GenAI to reduce reliance on middle management and nonclinical support roles — but notably, none of the surveyed groups believe GenAI will replace nurses or physicians. Instead, most respondents saw it as a way to augment, not eliminate, critical human roles.

A call for strategic governance

If GenAI is to play a sustainable role in health care, leaders will need to do more than pilot flashy tools. Respondents overwhelmingly supported stronger policies around data use (64%), bias transparency (55%) and defining ethical and legal responsibilities of GenAI systems.

“It is imperative organizations deploy GenAI strategically and methodically, establishing clear, understood, well-communicated guidelines and applicable training,” said Denise Anderson, president and CEO of the Health Information Sharing and Analysis Center.

Health care professionals and administrators involved in the survey agree that the real danger may not be overreliance, but under-imagination.

“Too many health care orgs are duct-taping AI onto crumbling workflows, hoping for efficiency while ignoring reinvention,” said Tatyana Kanzaveli, CEO of Open Health Network. “GenAI is not here to optimize the past — it’s here to provoke a redesign of care itself. Until leaders shift from pilot projects to system-level provocations, we’ll keep solving yesterday’s problems with tomorrow’s tools.”