How can healthcare professionals in France distinguish truly useful resources from the mass of available information? With recent regulatory obligations related to artificial intelligence, new digital funding mechanisms, and institutional publications, the documentary landscape has significantly evolved in recent months. This article compares the main categories of resources and assesses their relevance according to the type of practice.
Digital Obligations and Software Funding: What Changed in July 2026
Two regulatory texts published a few days apart have modified the digital practice framework for physicians. The decree n° 2026-691 of July 27, 2026, published in the Official Journal on July 29, imposes specific precautions on physicians to ensure the safety of care and the confidentiality of data when using digital tools or artificial intelligence.
At the same time, an order dated July 15, 2026 (published in the Official Journal on July 21) created a new funding mechanism for practice management software, with deployment planned until 2029. These two texts outline a framework where the adoption of digital tools is no longer optional, but regulated and financially supported.
To keep up with the evolution of these regulatory topics, the articles published on Dr Hackney provide access to analyses focused on the daily practice of caregivers.
Institutional Resources in Digital Health: Comparative Table of Main Sources
| Source | Type of Content | Target Audience | Update Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAS | Recommendations, AI guidelines, practice evaluations | All healthcare professionals | Several publications per month |
| Public Health France | Epidemiological data, prevention materials, thematic files | Public health professionals, general practitioners | Ongoing (data) + occasional files |
| Digital Health Agency | Technical references, Ségur of digital, certifications | Publishers, IT managers, independent practitioners | As regulatory waves unfold |
| Sante.fr | Public information, directories, maps | Patients (and indirect professional guidance) | Ongoing |
| OPCO Santé | Training pathways, support for digital skills | Employees in the health and social care sector | According to deployed programs |
This table highlights a often underestimated point: the resources do not target the same professional. A private practitioner looking to understand their obligations regarding AI will not go to Sante.fr (patient-oriented), but to HAS or specialized publications. In contrast, a health manager in an institution will find more structuring information from the Digital Health Agency or OPCO Santé.
Artificial Intelligence in Health: The Gap Between Individual Uses and Collective Governance
HAS published guidelines on August 13, 2026, intended for an “informed, critical, and secure” use of generative AI in health. This document is not only aimed at the general public: it serves as a regulatory signal for professionals, laying the groundwork for responsible use of these technologies in care.
A HOURAA survey conducted during the summer of 2026 revealed a significant finding: individual uses of AI in hospital settings are progressing faster than its institutional structuring. Practitioners are already using generative AI tools for writing reports or assisting with diagnoses, while their institution may lack a charter, a dedicated committee, or a formalized data policy.
This gap creates a concrete risk. Without collective governance, each professional relies on their own criteria for reliability and confidentiality. The decree of July 27, 2026, attempts to address this by imposing individual obligations, but the question of shared responsibility between practitioner and institution remains open.
What Professionals Should Check Before Using an AI Tool
- The tool’s compliance with health data confidentiality requirements (HDS hosting, encryption, query traceability)
- The existence of clinical validation or appropriate regulatory marking for the intended use case
- The institution’s or practice structure’s policy regarding the use of AI, even on an exploratory basis
- The ethical precautions imposed by decree n° 2026-691, particularly the systematic verification of results produced by an algorithm
Professional Monitoring in Health: Criteria for Selecting Sources
The proliferation of channels (webinars, newsletters, podcasts, training platforms) makes monitoring time-consuming. Not all formats are equal in terms of informational density.
Institutional webinars (HAS, SantExpo congress) offer direct access to experts and decision-makers, with the possibility of asking questions. However, their duration often exceeds one hour, making them less compatible with a busy private practice. Replays are an alternative, provided they are available quickly.
Downloadable practical guides (such as those offered by certain platforms specializing in replacement or practice management) meet specific operational needs: taxation, administrative procedures, contracts. Their limitation lies in their publication date, which is not always updated after a regulatory change.
To structure effective monitoring, three sorting criteria must be applied:
- The date of the last update of the content, particularly for anything related to the Ségur of digital or AI obligations
- The level of specialization relative to one’s own practice (private, hospital, paramedical)
- The presence of identifiable primary sources (legal texts, HAS publications, epidemiological data) rather than mere reformulations
The landscape of resources for healthcare professionals is restructuring around two axes: the rise of AI (with its ethical obligations) and the gradual funding of digital practice tools. Practitioners who cross institutional sources and specialized monitoring are those who quickly identify changes that have a direct impact on their practice. The decree of July 27, 2026, and the HAS guidelines on generative AI are just the beginning: more texts will follow by 2029, in line with the waves of the Ségur.
