Objective The objective was to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in clinical radiology in The Netherlands. Materials and methods Using an embedded multiple case study, an exploratory, qualitative research design was followed. Data collection consisted of 24 semi-structured interviews from seven Dutch hospitals. The analysis of barriers and facilitators was guided by the recently published Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework for new medical technologies in healthcare organizations. Results Among the most important facilitating factors for implementation were the following: (i) pressure for cost containment in the Dutch healthcare system, (ii) high expectations of AI’s potential added value, (iii) presence of hospital-wide innovation strategies, and (iv) presence of a “local champion.” Among the most prominent hindering factors were the following: (i) inconsistent technical performance of AI applications, (ii) unstructured implementation processes, (iii) uncertain added value for clinical practice of AI applications, and (iv) large variance in acceptance and trust of direct (the radiologists) and indirect (the referring clinicians) adopters. Conclusion In order for AI applications to contribute to the improvement of the quality and efficiency of clinical radiology, implementation processes need to be carried out in a structured manner, thereby providing evidence on the clinical added value of AI applications. Key Points • Successful implementation of AI in radiology requires collaboration between radiologists and referring clinicians. • Implementation of AI in radiology is facilitated by the presence of a local champion. • Evidence on the clinical added value of AI in radiology is needed for successful implementation.

he prospect of improved clinical outcomes and more efficient health systems has fueled a rapid rise in the development and evaluation of AI systems over the last decade. Because most AI systems within healthcare are complex interventions designed as clinical decision support systems, rather than autonomous agents, the interactions among the AI systems, their users and the implementation environments are defining components of the AI interventions' overall potential effectiveness. Therefore, bringing AI systems from mathematical performance to clinical utility needs an adapted, stepwise implementation and evaluation pathway, addressing the complexity of this collaboration between two independent forms of intelligence, beyond measures of effectiveness alone 1 . Despite indications that some AI-based algorithms now match the accuracy of human experts within preclinical in silico studies 2 , there

The new radiotherapy high field, 1.5 Tesla MRI-guided linear accelerator (MR-Linac) is being clinically introduced. Sensing and evaluating opportunities and barriers at an early stage will facilitate its eventual scale-up. This study investigates the opportunities and barriers to the implementation of MR-Linac into prostate cancer care based on 43 semi-structured interviews with Dutch oncology care professionals, hospital and division directors, patients, payers and industry. The analysis was guided by the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework of new medical technologies and services. Opportunities included: the acquirement of ( 1 ) advanced MRI-guided radiotherapy technology with ( 2 ) the potential for improved patient outcomes and ( 3 ) economic benefits, as well as ( 4 ) professional development and ( 5 ) a higher hospital quality profile. Barriers included: ( 1 ) technical complexities, ( 2 ) substantial staffing and structural investments, ( 3 ) the current lack of empirical evidence of clinical benefits, ( 4 ) professional silos, and ( 5 ) the presence of patient referral patterns. While our study confirms the expected technical and clinical prospects from the literature, it also reveals economic, organizational, and socio-political challenges.

In the version of this article initially published, a list of the DECIDE-AI expert group members and their affiliations was omitted and has now been included in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.