Clinical AI Governance Adviser — Hospital Network

The mandate

The unresolved clinical question is what evidence should permit an algorithm to move from retrospective study into a live diagnostic or triage pathway. Departments currently apply inconsistent thresholds, leaving the board exposed to uneven oversight and unclear human accountability.

Three days monthly cover model-evidence review, a clinician workshop and Ethics Committee attendance. A safety signal involving a deployed tool requires acknowledgement within six hours and availability for an emergency review inside twenty-four hours.

The appointment is fixed for twelve months, closes after the first annual portfolio reauthorisation and is expressly non-renewable. The adviser has no line authority, treating responsibility, medical-director status or executive accountability.

Only two additional substantive appointments may coexist. Relationships with AI vendors, trial sponsors, competing hospital systems or diagnostic laboratories must be disclosed, and paid product endorsements are incompatible with the role.

Why the board wants this voice

Individual specialties assess tools well within their domains but not against a common institutional standard. Procurement and technology teams cannot adjudicate clinical validity alone. The committee wants an experienced physician-operator who can challenge evidence and workflow consequences without selling a product.

What you will own

• Test validation evidence for population fit, subgroup performance, calibration and clinically meaningful endpoints.
• Challenge whether human review can realistically catch failure modes at the proposed workflow speed.
• Press committees to define override, escalation and incident-reporting duties before go-live.
• Shape a tiered approval model based on harm severity, autonomy and reversibility.
• Examine post-deployment surveillance plans for drift, automation bias and missed follow-up.
• Guide debate on patient disclosure and clinician consent for algorithm-supported decisions.
• Advise the committee when evidence warrants suspension, restricted use or independent revalidation.

Candidate qualifications

• 22–28 years combining clinical practice with hospital quality, digital medicine or medical-technology governance.
• Direct oversight of at least one diagnostic or triage algorithm in routine clinical operations.
• Experience reviewing study design, subgroup validity and post-market safety signals.
• Board or ethics-committee credibility across clinicians, technologists and legal counsel.
• Evidence of restricting an AI tool whose measured performance masked workflow risk.
• No financial interest in vendors likely to submit products for approval.

Non-negotiables

• Current professional standing appropriate to advise a clinical governance committee.
• Six-hour acknowledgement and twenty-four-hour review availability for a credible safety signal.
• Three onsite Hyderabad days monthly, including committee attendance.
• No treatment direction or substitute medical judgement created by the advisory appointment.

1. 49 words maximum. Which clinical algorithm did you govern in live care, and what evidence determined its permitted scope?
2. 49 words maximum. Disclose any hospital, laboratory, trial sponsor or AI-vendor relationship relevant to this portfolio.
3. 49 words maximum. Can you protect three monthly onsite days and join a safety review within twenty-four hours?