The most important prerequisite for safe AI in healthcare is not the technology itself. It's for the professional groups to take control – from the classroom to the clinic.

When artificial intelligence is discussed in healthcare, the conversation often revolves around systems, vendors, and national plans. It's easy to get the impression that digitalization is something being rolled out from the top down, and that healthcare professionals are on the receiving end, waiting for something to happen to them.

What is actually happening in the Norwegian healthcare system right now points in a different direction. The professions are building digital competence themselves – collectively, through unions and professional communities, and now also right from their basic education. This is a quieter development than the major system debates, but in the long run, it may prove to be the most important. For safe use of AI in healthcare is not determined by how advanced the technology is, but by whether those who are to use it understand it, set demands for it, and retain professional control.

Digital competence begins now at the study desk

A clear example comes from the physiotherapy profession. At OsloMet, digital competence, service innovation, and generative artificial intelligence are planned to be integrated into physiotherapy education – through new courses, interprofessional learning, and research-based initiatives. The idea is that the next generation of physiotherapists will not encounter AI documentation as something foreign they have to learn afterward, but as a natural part of the profession they are being educated in.

This is an important shift. When digital literacy is integrated into education itself, it does not become an add-on for the specially interested, but a part of the fundamental academic foundation. Healthcare education thus takes on the role of driving digital transformation – not as technology providers, but as stewards of the profession. This means that those who graduate in a few years will have a completely different starting point for assessing when a digital tool aids the profession and when it hinders it.

The subjects set the premises – not the technology

Education is only one part of the picture. Established professional communities are also taking action. Physical therapists have put digitalization on the agenda through their own themed days, and several professional associations are working on principles for how artificial intelligence should be used in the field. Opticians are discussing in their own professional channels how AI affects professional identity. Common to this is that the professional groups do not leave the question to technology alone – they define for themselves what constitutes responsible use.

This aligns with how the authorities themselves think. The Directorate of Health's report on large language models in health and care services points out that what is needed for safe use is not primarily more technology, but competence, quality frameworks, and sound governance. The report highlights, among other things, a lack of competence in the use of language models as a real risk. In other words: the tools do not become safe on their own. They become safe when the profession surrounding them is strong enough to critically evaluate them.

It's worth noting that this applies broadly—not just to large medical groups. Midwives, occupational therapists, speech therapists, social workers, optometrists, and chiropractors face the same questions, often with less IT support than a large hospital has. Precisely for this reason, the collective competence building within each profession becomes so valuable: it also provides smaller professional groups with a foundation for making their own informed choices.

Tools that allow the subject to retain control

What does a tool that actually supports this development, instead of hindering it, look like? The answer is related to who decides what the documentation should look like.

A tool like Medivox is built around the idea that the professional should retain control. In practice, this means you build your own templates, tailored to your profession and workflow – a physical therapist does not document like an optician, and a speech therapist not like a chiropractor. The tool listens to the consultation and delivers a structured draft, but You own the journal and make the final assessment. Personal data is pseudonymized before further data processing, and all data processing takes place in Norwegian data centers. It is not the technology that takes over the expertise; it is the expertise that utilizes the technology on its own terms.

We have previously written about of professions that too rarely are at the top of the health technology agenda, and about how extended responsibility – such as chiropractor's referral rights – also means increased responsibility for documentation. When the field itself builds up the competence to evaluate the tools, it becomes easier to choose solutions that actually fit the everyday work, and to disregard those that don't.

The actual success factor

It's tempting to measure the digitalization of the healthcare system by the number of systems rolled out, or by how advanced the technology has become. But the most crucial factor is harder to count: whether those who are to use the tools have the competence to use them wisely.

Here, developments give reason for optimism. When digital literacy is integrated into education, when labor unions develop their own principles, and when each profession discusses what responsible AI use means for there Then, a foundation is built that allows the technology to be used safely. None of these professional groups are waiting to be digitized. They are taking action themselves.

For those working clinically, the advice is simple: participate in the profession's own arenas, put digital competence on the agenda in your practice, and choose tools that allow the profession to maintain control – such as templates you define yourself. Technology is coming regardless. The question is whether it will come on the profession's terms or someone else's.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is digital competence more important than technology itself?
Because a tool only becomes safe and useful if the user can critically evaluate it. The Directorate of Health itself points to competence and quality frameworks – not technology alone – as crucial for safe AI use.

Does speech-to-text work for physiotherapists and other smaller professional groups?
Yes. Tools like Medivox are built so that each profession can create its own templates tailored to its terminology and way of working, whether you are a physiotherapist, optician, speech therapist, or chiropractor.

Will AI take over professional judgment?
No. A good tool provides a draft, but you own the journal and make the final assessment. The purpose is to remove the writing, not to take over the expertise.

How can I, as a clinician, build digital competence without a large IT department behind me?
Use the profession's own arenas – theme days, association principle work, and professional journals – and test tools on a small scale before you implement them in full operation. Much of the competence building happens collectively within the profession.

Use Medivox for free – Get started completely free

Would you like to see how you can build your own templates tailored to your profession? Contact us – then we will show you how Medivox allows the profession to maintain control.

Sources: