AI governance readiness is the operational measure of how well your practice can demonstrate responsible oversight when an adverse outcome arrives. Policy documentation, clinician training, override logging, incident response, and a complete audit trail produced on demand. Practices with strong readiness answer questions in minutes; practices without scramble for weeks.

AI diagnostic tools are now embedded in everyday reporting workflows across Australia. Medical indemnity insurers are starting to price this risk separately. The TGA continues to refine its regulatory framework for AI as a medical device. The question is no longer whether your practice needs governance, it's whether you can prove you have it.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) published Chapter 9 of their standards specifically addressing AI in clinical practice. It covers clinician responsibility, validation requirements, and ongoing monitoring obligations. This assessment maps directly to RANZCR Chapter 9 expectations.

The Clinical AI Oversight Specification (CAIOS) is an evidentiary standard developed for healthcare practices using AI diagnostic tools, currently under peer review at JMIRO. CAIOS defines five governance domains. AI Identification and Transparency, Human Accountability, Clinical Context Preservation, Reasoning Documentation, and Integrity and Auditability. This assessment evaluates your practice across all five.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration classifies many AI diagnostic tools as software as a medical device (SaMD). Practices using AI tools need to demonstrate they understand the regulatory classification of their tools and have appropriate governance structures in place. A central AI tool inventory with TGA classification is a foundational requirement that many practices lack.

When an AI-assisted diagnosis leads to an adverse outcome, the governance trail matters. Could your practice show an external reviewer exactly how the AI tool was validated, how clinicians were trained, how overrides were documented, and what incident response process was followed? Practices that cannot produce this evidence face significant medico-legal exposure that compounds rapidly through the review process.