AI GRCAPractice Lab
Step 5 of 5Evidence
05 · Practitioner output · Health

Complete the AIMS gap assessment

Demo mode — sign in to save your work

Your conclusion should show whether patient-safety evidence, clinical ownership and operational controls are strong enough for launch.

PRACTICE MODELoading

Restoring your saved mode and lab work…

HEALTH WORKING CONTEXT

Write the health approval record

The system operates around sensitive health information and may influence clinical or service decisions. Patient safety and clinical accountability are material.

Evidence bar
  • Clinical sign-off
  • Risk acceptance record
  • Post-launch safety monitoring plan
REVIEW CHECKPOINTS

ISO 42001 Gap Assessment

ISO 42001 Gap Assessment

Complete the fields against the health operating context. Your work saves automatically in this browser.

Write at least 20 characters of your own answer to unlock the review guide.

Write at least 20 characters of your own answer to unlock the review guide.

Write at least 20 characters of your own answer to unlock the review guide.

Loading saved answers…

ASSURANCE WORKPAPER

Test whether the controls actually operate

Move beyond policy design: define a population, select a defensible sample, test evidence, document exceptions and write the conclusion an audit committee would need.

01Define

Objective, population and period.

02Sample

Risk-based and representative items.

03Test

Inspect, observe and reperform.

04Conclude

Rate findings and communicate.

STRUCTURED ARTEFACT

Risk → control → evidence traceability

Build an auditable decision trail. A risk without a control—or a control without evidence—remains visible as a gap.

No traceability rows yet. Add the first priority risk and connect it to a control, test and evidence.

SCENARIO INJECT

The situation has changed

Choose an event and update the governance response as if the system were already operating.

NEW EVENT

Unannounced model change

The supplier upgrades the underlying model and cannot confirm whether prior validation remains representative.

The business wants to keep the original approval because users have not complained.

Write at least 40 characters to unlock the response criteria.

PRACTITIONER MATURITYLevel 1 · Initial

Work has started, but material evidence and ownership are missing.

Why this level?
  • Workflow is 0% complete.
  • Worksheet answer coverage is 0%.
  • No complete risk-control-evidence row is ready for review.
  • Rubric ratings are not yet consistently strong or competent.
READINESS GATENot ready
Workflow
0%
Answers
0%
Traceability
0 rows
Why this gate?
  • Workflow completion is 0%.
  • Answer coverage is 0%.
  • Add at least one traceability row marked ready for review.
TRAINER FEEDBACK

What to strengthen next

  • Name the affected people and explain the pathway from system behaviour to impact.
  • Assign an accountable human role; responsibility cannot sit with the AI system.
  • Define the evidence and acceptance criteria needed to support the conclusion.
  • Add post-deployment monitoring, escalation thresholds and a reassessment trigger.
SELF-ASSESS BEFORE EXPORT

Practitioner quality rubric

Rate the work honestly. “Needs revision” is a useful result when it identifies what to strengthen before review.

Context and scope

Strong: States the system, decision, actors, people affected, boundaries and material assumptions.

Improve: Avoid generic statements or conclusions that depend on unstated facts.

Risk reasoning

Strong: Links a credible cause and event to a specific impact, then assesses likelihood, severity and uncertainty.

Improve: Do not list harms without explaining how they could arise in this scenario.

Proportionate controls

Strong: Selects preventive, detective and corrective controls that address the identified risks and assigns owners.

Improve: Avoid control lists with no connection to a risk, trigger or responsible role.

Evidence and decision

Strong: Defines testable evidence, acceptance criteria, residual risk and a clear, conditional recommendation.

Improve: A confident conclusion is not defensible when evidence, thresholds or escalation routes are missing.

EVIDENCE-QUALITY GATES
Practitioner evidence pack

AIMS360

Northbridge Health Network · Health overlay · AI management system simulator

Prepared by
Learner name not added
Course coverage
Weeks 12–16
Training simulation only · Fictional scenario and data

Executive assignment

Northbridge Health Network plans an AI assistant that summarises referral notes and suggests a service and urgency category. It uses a hosted language model with a local triage classifier; a qualified clinician must review every suggestion before the referral is routed.

In simple terms: The health network wants AI to shorten referral notes and suggest where and how urgently a patient should be seen. A clinician checks the suggestion, but a poor summary or category could still delay care.

Assignment: Define the AIMS scope and operating model, then identify the most important implementation gaps.

Sector overlay: Health

Decision pressure: The steering committee meets in 10 working days. The launch slot will be lost if the decision is deferred beyond this meeting.

Ownership gap: Product, Risk and Operations each believe another function owns final residual-risk acceptance. The governance charter is silent.

Known facts

  • The assistant processes referral notes containing sensitive health information
  • A hosted language model creates the clinical-administration summary
  • A local classifier suggests one of 12 services and an urgency band
  • A qualified clinician can change the service and urgency before routing
  • Validation by patient group and clinical setting has not been completed

Standards Crosswalk & Context Register

ISO AI standards crosswalk
Not completed
AIMS scope statement
Not completed
Internal and external issues
Not completed
Interested parties and needs
Not completed
Boundaries, interfaces and exclusions
Not completed

AI Policy & Objectives

AI policy extract
Not completed
Roles, responsibilities and authorities
Not completed
AI objectives and measures
Not completed
AIMS risks and opportunities
Not completed

AIMS Operating Procedure

Operating procedure
Not completed
Annex A control mapping
Not completed
Monitoring, internal audit and management review
Not completed
Nonconformity and continual improvement
Not completed

ISO 42001 Gap Assessment

Current AIMS maturity
Not completed
Priority gaps
Not completed
Remediation roadmap
Not completed
Implementation readiness
Not completed
Management review summary
Not completed

Assurance testing workpaper

Assurance objective
Not completed
Population and period
Not completed
Sampling approach
Not completed
Test procedure
Not completed
Exceptions and root cause
Not completed
Finding and severity
Not completed
Management action
Not completed
Board / audit summary
Not completed

Quality review and sign-off

Reviewer: AIMS steering committee

Decision challenge: Would this management system operate repeatedly, or is it only a collection of documents?

Context and scope
Not rated
Risk reasoning
Not rated
Proportionate controls
Not rated
Evidence and decision
Not rated

Reviewer sign-off: ____________________   Date: __________   Version: 1.0

Prepared as a learning artefact. Validate legal and regulatory conclusions against current authoritative sources before real-world use.
TRAINER REVIEW

Sign in to submit this evidence

Demo work stays in this browser. A registered account can submit a fixed version to a cohort trainer.

Sign in or create account
Back Finish lab