A framework for safe, ethical, and trustworthy AI deployment and integration in hospitals: a systematic review and regulatory gap analysis with emphasis on the U.S. regulatory context.
- 1The James & Gail Ellis School of Business Leadership, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States.
- 2School of Public Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States.
- 3Department of Applied Health, Brigham Young University-Idaho, Rexburg, ID, United States.
Abstract
The rapid deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in U.S. hospitals has outpaced regulatory frameworks. By end-2025, the FDA had authorized over 1,451 AI-enabled medical devices, yet governance remains fragmented and reactive. Although the regulatory analysis focuses on the United States, the review included international evidence where directly relevant to U.S. hospital governance, and U.S.-specific conclusions rest primarily on the U.S.-based evidence. This systematic review and regulatory gap analysis examined the current state of AI governance in U.S. hospitals, identified critical gaps between existing regulations and governance needs, and proposed a comprehensive framework for safe and trustworthy AI deployment. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar) were searched for peer-reviewed articles published from January 2017 through January 2026 (final searches 15-18 January 2026). The PICOS framework structured inclusion criteria. Quality was assessed using CASP, NOS, and QUADAS-2 according to study design. A narrative synthesis approach was employed, followed by a structured regulatory gap analysis of federal statutes, regulations, and agency guidance. Of 1,065 records identified, 22 studies met the eligibility criteria. In the systematic review, FDA, ONC, and CMS standards were inconsistent and poorly tailored to AI's evolving capabilities, with evidence of inconsistency between pre-market approval and real-world performance, underutilization of continuous surveillance, and failure to conduct subgroup bias analyses. The regulatory gap analysis identified four critical gaps: post-market surveillance deficiencies, equity protection failures, accountability clarification shortcomings, and governance capacity disparities. Interpretation of these findings for U.S. regulatory policy is provided separately in the regulatory gap analysis and the Discussion. A lifecycle governance framework is needed, incorporating continuous monitoring, transparency assurance, equity safeguards, accountability mechanisms, and scalable governance structures to ensure safe, ethical, and trustworthy AI deployment in healthcare. Key limitations include the retrospective protocol registration, the restriction to English-language publications, and the heterogeneity of the included evidence. Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/7q5xt.
Related
- Medico-legal integration of molnupiravir rapid deployment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Emergency use authorization, clinical evidence, and risk of viral mutagenesis
- From plausible menus to trustworthy nutrition: a risk-proportionate VALID-Diet framework for artificial intelligence-generated dietary advice
- A trustworthy anatomically-guided region-aware deep learning framework for automated Alzheimer’s disease classification from brain MRI
- Toward Standards for Responsible AI in Health Communication: A Dual Method Pre-Deployment Risk Evaluation Framework and Case Study
- The effect of exercise on regulatory T cells: A systematic review of human and animal studies with future perspectives and methodological recommendations
BibTeX
@article{conteh2026framework,
title = {{A framework for safe, ethical, and trustworthy AI deployment and integration in hospitals: a systematic review and regulatory gap analysis with emphasis on the U.S. regulatory context.}},
author = {Joseph Conteh and Naim Kapucu and Eunice F Ebevuhe and Oluwapelumi Wumi Adeniji},
journal = {Frontiers in digital health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fdgth.2026.1955958},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42952803},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - A framework for safe, ethical, and trustworthy AI deployment and integration in hospitals: a systematic review and regulatory gap analysis with emphasis on the U.S. regulatory context.
AU - Joseph Conteh
AU - Naim Kapucu
AU - Eunice F Ebevuhe
AU - Oluwapelumi Wumi Adeniji
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/14
JO - Frontiers in digital health
DO - 10.3389/fdgth.2026.1955958
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42952803
AB - The rapid deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in U.S. hospitals has outpaced regulatory frameworks. By end-2025, the FDA had authorized over 1,451 AI-enabled medical devices, yet governance remains fragmented and reactive. Although the regulatory analysis focuses on the United States, the review included international evidence where directly relevant to U.S. hospital governance, and U.S.-specific conclusions rest primarily on the U.S.-based evidence. This systematic review and regulatory gap analysis examined the current state of AI governance in U.S. hospitals, identified critical gaps between existing regulations and governance needs, and proposed a comprehensive framework for safe and trustworthy AI deployment. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar) were searched for peer-reviewed articles published from January 2017 through January 2026 (final searches 15-18 January 2026). The PICOS framework structured inclusion criteria. Quality was assessed using CASP, NOS, and QUADAS-2 according to study design. A narrative synthesis approach was employed, followed by a structured regulatory gap analysis of federal statutes, regulations, and agency guidance. Of 1,065 records identified, 22 studies met the eligibility criteria. In the systematic review, FDA, ONC, and CMS standards were inconsistent and poorly tailored to AI's evolving capabilities, with evidence of inconsistency between pre-market approval and real-world performance, underutilization of continuous surveillance, and failure to conduct subgroup bias analyses. The regulatory gap analysis identified four critical gaps: post-market surveillance deficiencies, equity protection failures, accountability clarification shortcomings, and governance capacity disparities. Interpretation of these findings for U.S. regulatory policy is provided separately in the regulatory gap analysis and the Discussion. A lifecycle governance framework is needed, incorporating continuous monitoring, transparency assurance, equity safeguards, accountability mechanisms, and scalable governance structures to ensure safe, ethical, and trustworthy AI deployment in healthcare. Key limitations include the retrospective protocol registration, the restriction to English-language publications, and the heterogeneity of the included evidence. Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/7q5xt.
SN - 2673-253X
ER -