By Beatriz Santos
Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the way professionals work across Europe, and healthcare is no exception. From exploring diagnoses to reviewing treatment options and handling complex medical information, AI is becoming part of everyday clinical practice. Yet, as Brussels continues to debate how best to regulate these technologies, their adoption is already moving ahead. A new report by We Are Innovation, The AI-Native Resident: How Spain’s Newest Doctors Are Using Artificial Intelligence, offers a glimpse into this emerging reality.
The exploratory study surveyed 30 medical residents across 14 specialties in Spain. Among them, 87% reported using AI at least several times a week, while 97% had used it to support decisions involving real patients. However, 90% claimed to have learned how to use AI tools independently, while only 7% had received formal training. Furthermore, none knew of a hospital policy for clinical AI use. Although the sample is small, it raises an important question: is European AI policy keeping pace with the professionals who are already adopting the technology?
Europe has spent years developing one of the world’s most comprehensive regulatory frameworks for artificial intelligence. The AI Act is based on legitimate concerns about safety, accountability and fundamental rights, particularly in sensitive areas such as healthcare. But regulation alone cannot guarantee responsible adoption. The report’s findings suggest that institutions may be lagging behind, leaving professionals to explore AI’s opportunities and risks largely on their own.
Europe is developing sophisticated rules for AI while many professionals still lack access to appropriate tools, practical training and clear institutional guidance. In the survey, 80% of residents relied on free personal accounts rather than institutionally provided ones. In healthcare, where patient safety and sensitive information are at stake, this is hardly an ideal arrangement. Hindering access without providing credible alternatives may simply encourage informal, unsupervised use.
The findings also expose a blind spot in Brussels’ approach: the cost of inaction. European policymakers have concentrated on what might go wrong when AI is deployed, yet little attention is devoted to what society could lose when beneficial technologies are unavailable or difficult to adopt. With European healthcare systems facing workforce shortages, ageing populations and increasing administrative burdens, the potential benefits of AI deserve serious consideration.
Indeed, 97% of surveyed residents reported saving time through AI, while 60% estimated saving at least an hour per week. These self-reported figures do not establish clinical effectiveness, but they suggest opportunities worth investigating. AI will not replace medical expertise, nor should it. However, responsibly deployed tools could help clinicians retrieve information, reduce repetitive tasks and give more attention to patients.
Nevertheless, 97% of the study’s respondents have expressed concerns regarding AI errors or hallucinations, yet only around one-third regularly verified AI-generated outputs against independent sources. Awareness of risk clearly does not guarantee responsible behaviour. Closing this gap requires training, professional standards and institutional support. Europe’s AI literacy ambitions must translate into practical competencies.
This is particularly relevant following the AI Act’s implementation milestones and the adoption of the AI Omnibus simplification measures in 2026. Brussels now has an opportunity to complement its regulatory framework with a genuine AI adoption agenda. That means facilitating access to reliable technologies, supporting professional training, simplifying procedures and ensuring that safety requirements are proportionate to actual risks. Effective regulation should make innovation easier, not leave professionals dependent on improvised solutions.
The doctors surveyed are not demanding a world without safeguards. On the contrary, 83% believe health authorities should actively promote or facilitate AI use, and the same proportion would use it more if adequate tools, training and guidelines were available. Their message should resonate beyond healthcare. Across Europe, professionals are discovering useful applications of AI faster than institutions can adapt. Policymakers need to consider these experiences rather than assuming that regulatory compliance alone will deliver trustworthy innovation.
Europe’s next AI challenge is therefore not simply to regulate technological progress, but to enable citizens and professionals to benefit from it responsibly. This requires taking the risks of innovation seriously without overlooking the risks of standing still. The success of an European AI policy should ultimately be measured not only by the harms it prevents, but also by the opportunities it creates. AI is already entering Europe’s hospitals and workplaces. The question is whether Brussels will help Europeans use it safely and effectively, or leave them to figure it out alone.
* Beatriz Santos is the Chief Communications Officer (CCO) at We Are Innovation. She is based in Lisbon, Portugal. Beatriz started publishing articles through her University newspaper and eventually moved to national and international reach outlets, including the well known Portuguese outlets NOVO and Observador. Her professional career includes international communications experience with the ATREVIA agency and the European Parliament. She also has two published books and is an essential part of the Students For Liberty organization in Portugal. With a focus on positive change and global cooperation, Beatriz actively seeks partnerships across the globe to promote innovative initiatives.
