BACKGROUND AND APPROACH: In 2025, the National Academy of Medicine released an Artificial Intelligence Code of Conduct (AICC). In this commentary, we examine how the AICC introduces governance mechanisms to oversee AI applications and how it can support the ethical development and responsible use of AI in healthcare, paying special attention to the role of nurses. FINDINGS: One shortcoming of the AICC is its lack of explicit acknowledgment of nurses, which risks obscuring their indispensable role in the safe, equitable, and effective use of AI in healthcare. We offer practical steps for health leaders to operationalize the AICC. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the AICC can support robust AI governance in health systems, but nurse expertise must be incorporated. The AICC offers a framework into which nursing perspectives can be embedded to ensure that AI tools positively transform healthcare delivery and enhance the quality and equity of care.

OBJECTIVES: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in healthcare, transforming medical practice through advanced language processing capabilities. However, the evaluation of LLMs predominantly relies on human qualitative assessment, which is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and may be subject to variability and bias. There is a pressing need for quantitative metrics to enable scalable, objective, and efficient evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We propose a unified evaluation framework that bridges qualitative and quantitative methods to assess LLM performance in healthcare settings. This framework maps evaluation aspects-such as linguistic quality, efficiency, content integrity, trustworthiness, and usefulness-to both qualitative assessments and quantitative metrics. We apply our approach to empirically evaluate the Epic In-Basket feature, which uses LLM to generate patient message replies. RESULTS: The empirical evaluation demonstrates that while Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated replies exhibit high fluency, clarity, and minimal toxicity, they face challenges with coherence and completeness. Clinicians' manual decision to use AI-generated drafts correlates strongly with quantitative metrics, suggesting that quantitative metrics have the potential to reduce human effort in the evaluation process and make it more scalable. DISCUSSION: Our study highlights the potential of a unified evaluation framework that integrates qualitative and quantitative methods, enabling scalable and systematic assessments of LLMs in healthcare. Automated metrics streamline evaluation and monitoring processes, but their effective use depends on alignment with human judgment, particularly for aspects requiring contextual interpretation. As LLM applications expand, refining evaluation strategies and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration will be critical to maintaining high standards of accuracy, ethics, and regulatory compliance. CONCLUSION: Our unified evaluation framework bridges the gap between qualitative human assessments and automated quantitative metrics, enhancing the reliability and scalability of LLM evaluations in healthcare. While automated quantitative evaluations are not ready to fully replace qualitative human evaluations, they can be used to enhance the process and, with relevant benchmarks derived from the unified framework proposed here, they can be applied to LLM monitoring and evaluation of updated versions of the original technology evaluated using qualitative human standards.

OBJECTIVE: The complexity and rapid pace of development of algorithmic technologies pose challenges for their regulation and oversight in healthcare settings. We sought to improve our institution's approach to evaluation and governance of algorithmic technologies used in clinical care and operations by creating an Implementation Guide that standardizes evaluation criteria so that local oversight is performed in an objective fashion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Building on a framework that applies key ethical and quality principles (clinical value and safety, fairness and equity, usability and adoption, transparency and accountability, and regulatory compliance), we created concrete guidelines for evaluating algorithmic technologies at our institution. RESULTS: An Implementation Guide articulates evaluation criteria used during review of algorithmic technologies and details what evidence supports the implementation of ethical and quality principles for trustworthy health AI. Application of the processes described in the Implementation Guide can lead to algorithms that are safer as well as more effective, fair, and equitable upon implementation, as illustrated through 4 examples of technologies at different phases of the algorithmic lifecycle that underwent evaluation at our academic medical center. DISCUSSION: By providing clear descriptions/definitions of evaluation criteria and embedding them within standardized processes, we streamlined oversight processes and educated communities using and developing algorithmic technologies within our institution. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a scalable, adaptable framework for translating principles into evaluation criteria and specific requirements that support trustworthy implementation of algorithmic technologies in patient care and healthcare operations.

Artificial intelligence/machine learning models are being rapidly developed and used in clinical practice. However, many models are deployed without a clear understanding of clinical or operational impact and frequently lack monitoring plans that can detect potential safety signals. There is a lack of consensus in establishing governance to deploy, pilot, and monitor algorithms within operational healthcare delivery workflows. Here, we describe a governance framework that combines current regulatory best practices and lifecycle management of predictive models being used for clinical care. Since January 2021, we have successfully added models to our governance portfolio and are currently managing 52 models.