{"resourceId":"ny-ems-genai-advisory-26-01","versions":[{"version":"external-9f7171029eca3b061dd139cbdea687a3daaa2b11d52dcced204b1ba8e672e19a","resource":{"id":"ny-ems-genai-advisory-26-01","title":"New York EMS advisory makes AI use in clinical decisions part of the patient record","organization":"New York State Department of Health and State Emergency Medical Services Council","sector":"EMS clinical governance","geography":"New York, United States","publishedAt":"March 31, 2026","publicationDate":"2026-03-31","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"New York State Department of Health","sourceLabel":"Official two-page EMS advisory 26-01","sourceUrl":"https://healthweb-back.health.ny.gov/professionals/ems/pdf/26-01.pdf","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"cautionary","topics":["knowledge-work","data-security","governance-procurement","accessibility-workforce","operating-model"],"finding":"The advisory says providers must document how consulted AI informed care and remain responsible for clinical decisions and documentation.","sledRelevance":"Interpretation: Directly applicable to New York EMS governance; other jurisdictions require their own policy review.","evidence":"This is guidance, not an outcome evaluation. It addresses consent for recordings, security review, appropriate business associate agreements, fact-checking and withdrawal of inadequately validated tools. No sample, comparator or measured benefit is supplied.","architectureImplications":"Interpretation: Add a reviewable AI-use field to the clinical workflow and separate draft generation from record finalization. Evaluate cloud, local and hybrid processing against approved data boundaries.","governanceImplications":"Interpretation: Assign approval and suspension authority before pilot access is enabled.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Interpretation: Trace recording, transcription, inference and retention separately; use synthetic records until data handling is approved.","caveats":"Advisory scope is New York EMS. It does not certify any product or establish compliance through a hosting choice.","streamIds":["emergency-services"],"roles":{"sales":"Interpretation — Discuss undocumented AI use with the EMS chief, medical director, privacy lead and ePCR administrator. Ask whether staff can identify where assistance influenced care and how recordings reach third parties. Offer a bounded workflow assessment and synthetic-record demonstration. The value hypothesis is more traceable documentation with a manageable review burden; measure that burden against current practice. Do not promise clinical gains, guaranteed savings or product compliance. Include frontline clinicians in deciding whether a proposed documentation step is usable during transport. A separate local policy assessment is needed outside New York.","engineering":"Interpretation — Prototype an ePCR extension that records the tool version, relevant source inputs and clinician disposition without letting the assistant sign or finalize records. Prerequisites include supported interfaces, an approved field mapping and privacy-reviewed test data. Test omitted facts, invented observations, contradictions and unavailable inference services. A useful proof of value measures material errors and total correction time against clinician-authored records. Restrict service credentials and audit exports. The advisory supplies no acceptable error threshold, so medical leadership must define the pilot limits before testing. Developer agents have limited relevance beyond controlled implementation work.","delivery":"Interpretation — Clinical quality should own rollout with IT, privacy staff and clinician trainers. Map the encounter-to-record process, approve data handling, run synthetic tests and then seek the agency's normal clinical pilot authorization. Dependencies include review capacity and vendor interface support. Proposed acceptance criteria include traceable AI use for every assisted test record, no automatic finalization, successful fallback and prespecified limits on material errors. Train staff to report concerns and exercise a suspension procedure. Monitor accessibility of review controls and whether corrections add work during busy shifts. These are proposed criteria, not measured results."},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-13T03:01:56Z","enrichedAt":"2026-09-13T03:03:59Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Interpretation: Evaluate review controls with mobile users and clinicians needing assistive technology; include training and correction time in workload estimates.","procurementImplications":"Interpretation: Require exportable audit data, declared subprocessors and change-notification terms as reviewable deliverables.","operatingModelImplications":"Interpretation: Medical leadership owns permitted use; IT owns continuity; clinicians own encounter accuracy.","updateExplanation":"Newly catalogued historical advisory, absent from the 247-resource archive inspected. Adds a state-specific AI-use documentation obligation beyond the archived NASEMSO guidance; no September 12 policy change claimed.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://healthweb-back.health.ny.gov/professionals/ems/pdf/26-01.pdf","referenceExcerpt":"The certified EMS provider remains responsible","promptVersion":"sled-research-v3.1","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}