Integrating physician experience into life science technology decisions

Physicians operate at a critical inflection point in healthcare delivery. Their clinical decisions determine how therapies are deployed, how care pathways evolve, and how technology (including artificial intelligence) is experienced and adopted at the point of care. These decisions are made within a complex ecosystem of interdependent actors: patients and families, health systems, payers, regulators, and life science companies. Each of these stakeholders shapes the environment in which physicians work, yet few life science companies have systematized their understanding of how physician workflows, constraints, and preferences translate into technology adoption and, ultimately, clinical impact.

The conventional approach to technology strategy in life science has emphasized clinical endpoints, regulatory pathways, and commercial positioning. These remain essential. Equally important, however, is recognizing that technology lives or dies in clinical practice based on whether it fits into how physicians actually work. Physician experience is not the only factor that determines success. Patient outcomes, payer incentives, operational feasibility, and regulatory compliance all matter. The opportunity lies in integrating physician insights systematically into technology strategy alongside these other critical lenses, rather than treating adoption challenges as a downstream implementation problem.

Physicians in the healthcare ecosystem

Healthcare delivery depends on a network of interdependent decisions and relationships. Physicians occupy a central position within this network, serving multiple roles that have direct bearing on technology adoption and market success for life science companies.

Their core functions include:

For life science companies, these roles create several direct strategic implications:

Importantly, physician decisions do not occur in isolation. They are constrained and informed by patient preferences, payer policies and reimbursement structures, health system economics and staffing realities, regulatory requirements, and workforce availability. Technology strategy that privileges one stakeholder perspective at the expense of others will encounter implementation friction that could have been anticipated and addressed earlier in the development cycle.^[1][2][4]

How life science companies currently engage physicians

Life science industry engagement with physicians has evolved substantially over the past decade. The shift reflects both changing physician preferences and the maturation of digital engagement capabilities. Understanding this landscape is essential for companies launching new technologies, as it reveals both the current state of physician relationships and the gaps in how companies communicate about new solutions.

Traditional field and medical affairs engagement

Field sales representatives remain an active channel for many physicians, though the nature of these interactions has shifted. Face-to-face meetings have largely recovered to prepandemic volumes and continue to serve a purpose, particularly for addressing specific clinical questions, discussing patient populations, or navigating reimbursement and access issues.^[11][12][13]

In parallel, Medical Science Liaisons (MSLs) and the broader medical affairs function have become increasingly central to life science engagement strategies. MSLs are scientifically trained professionals (typically holding PharmD, PhD, or MD credentials) who engage in non-promotional, evidence-based conversations with clinicians. Their responsibilities include:^[10][14][15]

MSL roles have migrated earlier in the asset development timeline. Today, many are engaged pre-launch, working with pivotal investigators and high-influence clinicians to gather emerging evidence and incorporate clinical feedback into launch planning.^[6][7][10]

Life science companies also support physician education through accredited and unaccredited programs, including continuing medical education (CME), symposia at scientific conferences, and disease-focused educational content. These programs operate within strict regulatory guardrails designed to preserve scientific independence and manage conflicts of interest.^[16][17]

Digital and omnichannel engagement

Digital engagement has become a material component of physician outreach. Many physicians report preferring flexibility and asynchronous access to information. Surveys indicate that most physicians would like to maintain or increase the proportion of digital interactions with pharmaceutical and medical device companies.^[18][19][11]

Life science companies have developed corresponding digital capabilities:

The most mature organizations are progressing toward omnichannel orchestration: seamlessly integrating field, email, events, and digital content so that each interaction is informed by prior touchpoints and tailored to individual physician preferences. For example, a physician attending a virtual symposium on a difficult-to-manage patient population might receive targeted follow-up content by email, while their regional representative is prompted with talking points specific to that physician's apparent clinical interests.^[13][21][7]

In practice, many companies remain in transition. Physicians frequently report that a substantial portion of marketing content feels generic or misaligned with their specific practice context. This gap matters directly for technology adoption. When communications about new AI tools or digital products appear undifferentiated from standard promotional messaging, they compete for attention rather than serving as a resource for clinical problem-solving.^[23][24]

Compliance, transparency, and trust

All physician-company interactions operate within a regulated framework. Sunshine reporting requirements, anti-kickback statutes, promotional codes, and internal compliance policies establish what can be discussed, how financial relationships must be disclosed, and how interaction data can be used.^[25][26][6]

These requirements create both constraints and competitive opportunities. Companies that consistently demonstrate transparency, respect for scientific objectivity, and clear boundaries between educational and promotional activities build stronger, more durable relationships with clinicians. This trust becomes particularly consequential when introducing emerging technologies like AI, where clinicians have legitimate concerns regarding bias, algorithmic explainability, and potential unintended consequences.^{[19][27][28][29][30][10]}

Understanding how physicians spend their time

Any assessment of technology strategy involving physicians must begin with empirical understanding of their time allocation and workflow constraints.

A landmark time-motion study in ambulatory practice found that physicians spent only 27.0% of their office time on direct face-to-face clinical interaction and 49.2% on EHR and administrative desk work. During time spent physically in examination rooms, physicians allocated approximately half their time to direct patient interaction and more than one-third to EHR documentation.^[31][32]

A subsequent ecological momentary assessment study, which sampled physician activities throughout the workday in real time, found comparable patterns. Excluding personal time, physicians spent 66.5% of their time on direct patient care activities, yet nearly a quarter of that time involved simultaneous multitasking with EHR use. Across the full day, 44.9% of total time went to EHR-related activities, while only 41.8% of time involved direct patient interaction without concurrent documentation.^[33]

The administrative burden extends beyond scheduled clinic hours. Many physicians report one to two additional hours most evenings (colloquially known as "pajama time") devoted to note completion, message management, and administrative tasks. This after-hours work is particularly pronounced in primary care and other high-volume specialties.^[34][35][31]

These time allocation patterns create several implications for technology strategy:

Physician time and attention constraints are not the only design considerations in healthcare technology development. They are, however, among the most immediately perceived at the clinical level and materially influence whether well-designed solutions gain sustained adoption.

The link between physician experience and patient outcomes

Research evidence establishes a direct relationship between physician experience (encompassing workload, documentation burden, and burnout) and patient safety and care quality.

A comprehensive meta-analysis of 47 studies involving more than 42,000 physicians found that burnout was associated with approximately double the odds of patient safety incidents and low professionalism, and roughly triple the odds of low patient satisfaction. Other research suggests that in certain healthcare settings, burnout may contribute as substantially to medical error risk as traditionally recognized safety factors such as staffing ratios and standardized processes.^[36][37][38]

Digital systems are not the sole driver of physician burnout, yet they contribute meaningfully. EHR burden and related administrative work rank consistently among the top contributors to clinician dissatisfaction and burnout. When clinicians spend disproportionate time on documentation relative to patient interaction, the cognitive capacity available for clinical reasoning, patient education, and relationship building declines.^{[35][39][31][33][34]}

Well-designed digital tools, however, can improve both physician experience and patient outcomes. Clinical workflow optimization initiatives that streamline ordering, consolidate documentation, and improve information accessibility have demonstrated gains in efficiency and reductions in errors. Ambient AI scribe solutions, which transcribe patient encounters and automatically generate draft clinical notes for physician review, have produced reductions of approximately one hour per day in documentation time and concurrent improvements in both clinician satisfaction and patient-reported experience.^{[40][41][42][43][44][45]}

For life science companies developing technology solutions, the implication is neither that physician satisfaction supersedes all other objectives nor that it can be disregarded. Rather, physician experience represents one of the material levers that determines whether technology contributes to or detracts from care quality. When strategy, design, and implementation overlook this factor, other investments in analytics, infrastructure, or commercial support face diminishing returns.

How physicians evaluate AI and digital tools

Physician adoption of AI and digital tools reflects complex, context-dependent evaluation rather than uniform enthusiasm or skepticism. Recent surveys show growing penetration: approximately two in three physicians report using some form of health AI, representing a substantial year-over-year increase. For a meaningful segment of clinicians, enthusiasm for AI applications now exceeds concerns.^[28]

Concurrently, trust in medical AI remains conditional and multifaceted. Research on physician trust in AI systems reveals several important patterns:

Physicians consistently articulate three critical requirements for AI systems and advanced digital tools:

The adoption experience with AI-driven sepsis detection illustrates these principles in practice. Sepsis contributes to a substantial proportion of in-hospital mortality and has historically proven difficult to detect in early stages. Earlier rule-based alert systems frequently triggered false alarms, contributing to alert fatigue and eroding clinical confidence in the alert mechanism.^[47][46]

More recent machine learning systems, including the Targeted Real-Time Early Warning System (TREWS), used large-scale data patterns to identify at-risk patients with greater accuracy. Across multiple hospital deployments, TREWS identified sepsis cases earlier and more accurately than previous approaches. Clinicians adopted and acted on a substantial majority of alerts, with accompanying reductions in mortality and hospital length of stay.^[49][48]

The success of TREWS derived not solely from algorithmic superiority. It reflected deliberate choices regarding alert placement and presentation within the EHR, minimization of false positive rates, streamlined workflows for clinician review and action, and transparent monitoring and reporting of system performance.^{[46][47][48][49]}

For strategy teams developing healthcare technology, the lesson is instructive: physician perception of AI systems is shaped as substantially by usability and governance infrastructure as by headline performance metrics.

Translating physician journeys into technology strategy

Technology and AI strategy in life science companies must reconcile multiple, sometimes competing objectives:

Physician journey mapping and insights contribute to this multifaceted strategy without displacing other critical considerations.

Identifying problems worth solving

Systematic mapping of physician journeys (across a single clinic day, a complete treatment pathway, or a specific clinical specialty) helps identify where digital and AI tools can realistically drive meaningful improvement. In many healthcare settings, the most acute pain points clinicians describe are not insufficient clinical guidelines or lack of analytic sophistication, rather:

When these pain points are evaluated alongside patient journey mapping, payer incentive structures, and system-level operational goals, they help focus technology investment on problems that are simultaneously clinically meaningful and likely to achieve adoption.

Shaping solution design and implementation

Once a clinical problem is selected for technology intervention, physician journey insights help clarify design constraints and requirements:

These questions transcend user experience design; they influence regulatory strategy, data integration architecture, and commercial positioning. Clinician input is nonetheless essential for grounding solutions in practical reality.

Guiding engagement and adoption strategy

Physician journey understanding also informs how technologies are introduced and supported within healthcare organizations. Illustrative applications include:

In this context, physician perspective complements perspectives from other stakeholders. Operational leaders prioritize throughput and staffing efficiency; payers focus on total cost of care; regulators emphasize safety and algorithmic fairness. Technology strategy that integrates these multiple lenses with grounded understanding of clinical workflows and constraints will be more robust and implementable than approaches that privilege any single stakeholder viewpoint.

Building durable technology adoption and competitive advantage

The next generation of significant technology wins in life science will not accrue to companies that build the most algorithmically sophisticated systems or invest most heavily in marketing. They will instead accrue to companies that successfully bridge the gap between technological possibility and practical viability within real clinical environments.

This bridge is constructed through several disciplined practices:

The sepsis alert experience demonstrates the returns on this disciplined approach. Systems that thoughtfully address physician workflows, minimize alert burden, and establish transparent governance can achieve both meaningful clinical adoption and measurable patient outcomes. Technologies that treat physician workflow as a downstream implementation concern rather than a central design requirement frequently underperform relative to their technical capabilities.^{[47][48][49][46]}

The objective is not to subordinate business strategy to physician preferences. Rather, it is to recognize that life science technology decisions ultimately land in real clinical environments and that systematic integration of physician insights is one of the most practical mechanisms to convert technical capability into sustained adoption, clinical impact, and durable business value.

References