The Regulatory Vanguard: Assessing the MHRA AI Airlock and the UK’s Potential for Leadership in Ambient Voice Technology Governance
- Nelson Advisors
- Oct 22
- 15 min read
What is the MHRA’s AI Airlock?
The MHRA's AI Airlock is a regulatory sandbox for Artificial Intelligence as a Medical Device (AIaMD) products in the UK, launched by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Its main purpose is to:
Identify and address novel regulatory challenges posed by evolving AI medical devices.
Provide a safe, controlled environment for manufacturers to test and evaluate innovative AI tools in real-world or simulated settings (often in collaboration with the NHS and Approved Bodies).
Accelerate the safe adoption of effective AI in healthcare by working collaboratively with innovators and regulators early in the development process.
Gather in-depth insights from the testing of real-world products to inform the MHRA's future regulatory frameworks and guidance for AIaMD.
Essentially, it's a dedicated program to ensure that cutting-edge AI technologies are safe, effective, and can be brought to patients quickly by establishing clear, robust, and agile regulatory pathways.
The Regulatory Vanguard: Assessing the MHRA AI Airlock and the UK’s Potential for Leadership in Ambient Voice Technology Governance
Strategic Context: The UK’s Principles-Based Approach to AIaMD Regulation
The governance of Artificial Intelligence as a Medical Device (AIaMD) presents unique challenges related to algorithmic adaptivity, transparency, and assurance of continuous safety. The UK’s regulatory approach to this domain is strategically defined by a commitment to agility and innovation, leveraging existing sectoral regulators rather than relying on monolithic, preemptive legislation.
The Policy Divergence: Agility vs. Prescription in Global AI Governance
The foundation of the UK’s ambition is laid out in its National AI Strategy, which aims to establish the country as a "global AI superpower" by fostering "the most trusted and pro-innovation governance framework". This philosophical stance emphasises a context-sensitive, iterative approach that allows for adaptation by specialised regulators, such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). This model deliberately contrasts with the comprehensive and prescriptive legislative approaches adopted in other major jurisdictions, notably the European Union’s AI Act. The strategic decision is driven by a mandate to avoid introducing "new rigid and onerous legislative requirements" that could potentially impede the rapid advancement of AI innovation.
The UK framework rests on five cross-sectoral principles, intended to guide the development and deployment of AI systems across all regulated industries: safety, security and robustness; appropriate transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress. By delegating the interpretation and operationalisation of these high-level principles to expert sectoral bodies, the UK hopes to maintain greater flexibility in managing sector-specific risks.
This decentralised, principles-based model, however, carries an inherent structural tension. While it grants high operational flexibility, it simultaneously shifts the burden of interpreting these broad principles into concrete, technical compliance requirements onto the regulated manufacturers. This regulatory uncertainty can, in the initial stages, introduce friction for developers seeking market authorization. The central mechanism designed to mitigate this risk, translating conceptual principles (like Fairness and Accountability) into empirical, sector-specific technical requirements (such as validation protocols for specific datasets or robust post-market surveillance methods) is the MHRA’s AI Airlock. The Airlock thus functions as the essential, agile bridge between high-level policy ambition and pragmatic regulatory implementation.
The MHRA’s Mandate and the AIaMD Change Programme
As the regulator for medical products in UK health and social care, the MHRA holds a critical position in ensuring patient safety. Where AI is utilised for a medical purpose, it is highly probable that it falls within the scope of a general medical device, necessitating compliance with the UK Medical Devices Regulations 2002.The MHRA’s dedicated Software Group is responsible for the oversight of Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) and AIaMD, engaging in activities ranging from technical file reviews and post-market surveillance to assisting manufacturers with pre-market enquiries.
To address the rapidly evolving nature of digital technology, the MHRA launched the Software and AI as a Medical Device Change Programme Roadmap. This programme outlines an extensive three-year project dedicated to driving regulatory reforms across the entire software and AI medical device life cycle. Crucially, this reform addresses specific challenges posed by AIaMD, focusing on issues of transparency, including explainability and interpretability, and the challenge of adaptivity, which concerns the retraining and continuous evolution of AI models.
The explicit emphasis on 'adaptivity' highlights the agency’s recognition of the challenges presented by Continuously Learning Adaptive Medical Devices (CLAMDs). Traditional regulatory frameworks rely on assessing a device's performance at a fixed point in time ("lock-in-time" assessment). CLAMDs, however, change their function or performance characteristics based on real-world data. This dynamic quality inherently challenges fixed pre-market validation requirements, necessitating a fundamental shift toward regulating the entire algorithmic life cycle. The complexity introduced by adaptivity is precisely the regulatory gap that the MHRA is leveraging the AI Airlock to close, by gathering empirical evidence on how to safely manage algorithms that continuously evolve after deployment.
The MHRA AI Airlock: A Pioneering Regulatory Sandbox for AIaMD
The MHRA AI Airlock represents the practical, operational manifestation of the UK’s agile, principles-based AI strategy within the health sector. It is designed to proactively address the technical and regulatory friction points caused by AI's rapid advancement.
A. Definition, Necessity and Operational Methodology
The AI Airlock is the MHRA’s first regulatory sandbox for AIaMD products, officially launched in pilot form in Spring 2024. Its purpose is not to grant market approval, but rather to serve as a collaborative environment dedicated to identifying and accelerating solutions to the novel regulatory challenges presented by AIaMD, using real-world products and specific case studies.
This initiative is deeply collaborative, drawing expertise from various stakeholder groups essential for governing the AI life cycle: internal MHRA technical specialists, UK Approved Bodies (coordinated through Team AB, launched February 2024, to promote consistent regulatory interpretation), the NHS, the NHS AI Team, and the Department of Health and Social Care. Significantly, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) also supports the Airlock, offering specific referral services and advice to applicants concerning data protection by design.
The Pilot Programme, which ran from Spring 2024 to April 2025, followed a rigorous, structured four-step methodology to investigate regulatory gaps:
Orientation: A thorough situation assessment to understand the specific technologies under investigation and their relevant regulatory context.
Plan: Regulatory gap review conducted in collaboration with the developers, culminating in the development of a tailored test plan.
Test: Execution of testing in simulation, virtual, real-world, or hybrid environments, allowing for deep analysis of regulatory gaps.
Review: Synthesis of all findings and the formulation of recommendations.
The Airlock program is structured to address increasingly complex challenges across its phases.
Linking Airlock Outputs to Future Policy
The strategic value of the AI Airlock lies in its mandated purpose to directly inform future policy. The in-depth, technical insights gathered from testing real-world products and methodologies serve as the empirical data required for robust policy formulation.
The pilot programme culminated in comprehensive reports detailing the regulatory sandbox methodology, the results of the case studies, and lessons learned from the independent evaluation. While these reports do not constitute formal statutory guidance, they are essential deliverables intended to inform subsequent Airlock phases and, critically, future MHRA guidance and policy in the longer term.
The ultimate policy link is through the MHRA's National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare. The in-depth findings from the Airlock are explicitly intended to inform the recommendations delivered to this high-level body, which synthesizes advice from clinicians, regulators, and technology companies. This structured pathway ensures that regulatory reform is evidence-based and closely reflects the technical realities and clinical deployment issues uncovered in the sandbox environment, aligning the UK's aspirational principles with practical regulatory solutions.
Findings from the AI Airlock Pilot: Identification of Critical Regulatory Gaps
The AI Airlock pilot demonstrated the effectiveness of the sandbox methodology by successfully identifying several foundational regulatory gaps that impede the safe and effective deployment of complex AIaMD. These gaps varied across use cases but centered on core challenges inherent to generative and adaptive AI systems.
The Validation Crisis of Generative AI (LLMs)
One of the most profound regulatory gaps identified during the pilot related to the challenge of validating systems underpinned by Large Language Models (LLMs). The pilot specifically highlighted difficulties in the validation of text-based data from LLMs, noting the recurring issues of AI errors, inaccuracies, and non-determinism.
Non-determinism, the inability of an AI system to consistently produce the exact same output from identical input data, is a critical conflict with established medical device compliance requirements. Traditional medical device validation mandates that a device's performance specifications must be reliably characterized and guaranteed before market entry. When an LLM-based system, such as an Ambient Voice Technology scribe, exhibits non-deterministic behaviour, the manufacturer cannot fulfill the regulatory obligation to consistently guarantee the system's defined performance specifications. This lack of predictable performance makes compliance demonstration using current, traditional rules fundamentally inadequate.
The Airlock's empirical confirmation of this specific technical regulatory failure establishes a clear need for the MHRA to move toward a new paradigm that emphasises continuous statistical performance monitoring and bounds of acceptable variation, rather than relying on traditional fixed, rules-based validation procedures.
Managing Evolving AI and Scope of Intended Use Extension
Beyond the challenge of initial validation, the pilot and subsequent phases address the regulatory complexities introduced by continuously evolving AI, the 'adaptivity' challenge. AI systems operate by inferring patterns, making it difficult to fully explain the intent or logic behind an outcome.
Phase 2 of the AI Airlock, currently underway, is deliberately structured to focus on three key areas of friction: managing evolving AI applications, effectively regulating AI-powered diagnostics, and implementing robust post-market surveillance (PMS) for AI medical devices. Multi-environment candidates, such as TORTUS, an evolving clinical AI assistant designed to reduce administrative burden, are participating to test the real-world implications of regulatory requirements.
The challenge of intended use extension for evolving AI is paramount. An AI medical device's risk classification is intrinsically linked to its intended function. If a device is allowed to continuously adapt or add functionality post-market, its initial pre-market classification may become obsolete, potentially escalating its risk class (e.g., from Class I to Class IIa). The regulatory approach must recognize that a device’s risk profile is now dynamic. If an adaptation suggests management pathways or diagnostic interpretations, it moves instantly from a low-risk administrative tool to a higher-risk clinical decision support system.
The MHRA’s focus on linking 'post-market surveillance' to 'intended use extension' in Phase 2 indicates a clear regulatory objective: to establish PMS not merely as a defect reporting obligation, but as a continuous, mandated quality management and risk classification checkpoint. This approach enables the regulator to oversee and potentially restrict algorithmic evolution if the resulting risk exceeds the bounds of the original market authorization.
Ambient Voice Technologies (AVT): A Critical Test Case for Regulation
Ambient Voice Technologies (AVT), often referred to as AI scribes, are systems that utilize AI—frequently based on Large Language Models—to capture and process spoken conversations during clinical interactions, subsequently automating tasks such as drafting clinical notes and referral letters.15 Given their dependence on LLMs and their close integration into high-stakes clinical workflows, AVT represents a crucial test case for the efficacy of the UK’s agile regulatory strategy and the findings of the AI Airlock.
Functional Profile and Regulatory Classification
The utility of AVT is significant, offering potential positive impacts on financial performance and, critically, human outcomes by mitigating clinician burnout through the automation of time-consuming documentation.Faster, automated documentation also leads to improved operational efficiency and patient throughput.
The regulatory classification of AVT hinges entirely on the scope of its intended use, aligning with the UK’s risk-based medical device framework.
Class I (Low Risk): If the AVT function is strictly limited to summarisation and creating templated information intended for clinicians to use as part of an individual’s health record. These devices are generally self-declared medical devices in the UK.
Class IIa or Higher (Medium/High Risk): If the AVT provides any functionality that extends to diagnosis, proposing a management plan, referral calculation, or other functions beyond simple transcription or summarisation, the device classification elevates, mandating approval by an Approved Body.
This regulatory boundary is highly susceptible to the non-deterministic nature of LLMs confirmed by the Airlock. A product marketed as a Class I summariser is inherently at risk of generating diagnostic text or subtly suggesting management plans due to LLM 'hallucination' or unintentional function creep, thereby operating outside its self-declared regulatory status and potentially introducing unassessed risk into the clinical setting.
The Central Governance Principle: Human-In-Command (HIC)
The UK legislative and regulatory approach for adopting AVT emphasises stringent control mechanisms. Any health service provider, such as NHS Wales, choosing to adopt AVTs must adhere to existing UK legislative and regulatory requirements, including those set out by the MHRA.
The paramount safety principle is the Human-in-Command (HIC) mandate. AVTs must not be used as autonomous tools but operate under strict human supervision. The clinician retains full and ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the records, for validating the AVT outputs, and for ensuring the clinical notes align with the legal and professional scope for registered professionals.
Adoption also requires mandatory compliance with NHS procurement standards, specifically the NHS Digital Technology Assessment Criteria (DTAC).Key compliance pillars include: evidence of compliance with DCB0129 (a clinical safety standard), the appointment of a professionally registered Clinical Safety Officer (CSO), GDPR compliance, and a signed-off Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) by the deploying organisation.
The HIC principle functions as the legal backstop for accountability. However, expert analyses have identified a significant socio-technical risk that undermines this safeguard: reliance bias. While clinicians may be vigilant against errors initially, over time they become accustomed to the systems and trust the outputs, biasing them toward acceptance. When this reliance bias is paired with the Airlock’s finding that LLM outputs are inherently inaccurate and non-deterministic, the result is a systemic patient safety failure. The regulatory framework must therefore transition from merely asserting the clinician’s responsibility to mandating technical controls that actively counteract reliance bias, such as real-time discrepancy alerts or confidence scores.
Data Protection and Ethical Considerations
The deployment of AVT requires careful navigation of data protection and ethical principles. Recording conversations during consultations raises significant privacy concerns. Healthcare organisations must ensure transparent communication with patients, clearly explaining how data is collected and processed, and providing patients with clear opt-in or opt-out options to build trust. The ICO’s involvement in the AI Airlock, offering data protection by design advice, is a clear recognition of the importance of integrating privacy considerations from the earliest stages of development.
Furthermore, mitigating AI bias is an essential component of the regulatory principle of Fairness. AVT models trained on non-diverse data risk perpetuating or introducing bias, leading to inaccurate and potentially harmful outcomes for specific patient populations.Compliance teams must work closely with vendors to ensure inclusivity and fairness are prioritised throughout the training and validation phases.
UK Leadership in Safe AVT Regulation: A Strategic Assessment
The viability of the UK becoming a global leader in the safe regulation of Ambient Voice Technologies hinges on whether the speed and depth of learning achieved by the AI Airlock can translate into a coherent, trusted, and exportable regulatory framework that effectively manages AVT-specific risks.
The Leverage Point: Operationalising Airlock Findings for AVT
The UK's greatest asset is its agile methodology. The AI Airlock serves as an accelerated mechanism for generating empirical evidence specifically tailored to the problems posed by generative AI in clinical settings. By focusing on real-world use cases, including devices like TORTUS, the MHRA is rapidly gathering data on core AVT regulatory challenges: managing LLM non-determinism, overseeing intended use extension, and devising robust adaptive post-market surveillance protocols.
This agility allows the UK to develop detailed, risk-specific technical guidance faster than jurisdictions committed to broad, slow-moving statutory legislation. The outputs of the Airlock are already intended to inform the issuance of support templates, tools, and refined guidance for ambient scribing products by the NHS and MHRA. This rapid translation of technical findings into actionable policy signals to the global industry that the UK is not only researching the risks but is actively and quickly operationalising safety standards based on empirical evidence. This capability positions the UK as a leader in learning and adaptationwithin the AI governance sphere.
The Inhibitor: Decentralisation and Regulatory Friction
The core inhibitor to securing global regulatory leadership is the challenge inherent in the UK’s decentralized governance model. While the approach grants flexibility to individual regulators, it risks creating regulatory fragmentation and a perceived lack of a coherent "UK" vision.
For a multinational AVT manufacturer, compliance requires navigating multiple, context-specific policy layers: the MHRA’s medical device regulations and guidance, the rigorous technical and governance requirements of the NHS Digital Technology Assessment Criteria (DTAC), specific patient safety guidance from NHS England and its devolved counterparts (e.g., NHS Wales guidance on HIC) and data governance requirements specified by the ICO. This dispersal of authority, while designed to be context-sensitive, introduces compliance friction and high transaction costs for interpretation.
Global regulatory leadership is defined not just by agility, but by trusted clarity and exportability. If the technical learnings from the Airlock are dispersed across disparate, non-statutory documents issued by the MHRA, NHS, and ICO, the internal fragmentation undermines the external appeal of the framework. To become a global vanguard, the UK must integrate its deep, agile learning with a unified, transparent regulatory outcome. The current fragmented approach, if not synthesised, may discourage global MedTech companies seeking a clear, singular pathway to compliance, thereby limiting the UK's ability to truly lead the sector.
The following table summarizes the key regulatory risks for AVT and the UK’s approach to mitigation:
Ambient Voice Technology (AVT) Regulatory Requirements and Associated Risks.
Conclusion and Recommendations for Securing Regulatory Leadership
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s AI Airlock is an indispensable regulatory instrument that validates the effectiveness of the UK’s agile, principles-based governance model in generating rapid, technical, and evidence-based solutions for complex AIaMD challenges. The Airlock has successfully moved the regulatory discourse from theoretical problems to empirical findings, most notably confirming the technical difficulty of validating generative Large Language Models due to non-determinism, a direct threat to the safety assurance of Ambient Voice Technologies.
The UK possesses the technical knowledge and the regulatory mechanism (the Airlock) necessary to be a leader in the safe governance of AVT. However, achieving genuine global leadership requires overcoming the internal hurdle of regulatory fragmentation and ensuring that the safety framework is not only robust in principle but also operationally resilient against inherent socio-technical risks.
Based on the analysis of the regulatory environment and the findings of the AI Airlock, the following strategic recommendations are necessary to translate agility into sustained, trustworthy leadership:
Recommendation 1: Establishing LLM Performance Metrics for AVT
The MHRA must immediately translate the Airlock’s findings on LLM non-determinism and inaccuracy into specific, quantitative guidance for AVT manufacturers. This guidance should move beyond qualitative statements on performance by defining acceptable variability thresholds, mandatory statistical performance metrics (e.g., bounds of acceptable error rates in text generation) and required validation methodologies tailored for the statistical nature of generative models. This targeted technical standard will provide the necessary clarity for manufacturers to comply with the principle of robustness.
Recommendation 2: Integrating Technical Controls to Counter Reliance Bias
The current regulatory safety framework for AVT relies heavily on the Human-in-Command (HIC) principle, but this is systemically vulnerable to clinician reliance bias. To mitigate this systemic patient safety risk, policy must mandate the incorporation of technical safeguards within AVT user interfaces. These safeguards should include providing real-time model confidence scores for generated text, implementing automated discrepancy alerts when LLM outputs deviate significantly from source conversation, and mandating enhanced explainability features that highlight the origin and certainty of key clinical data points. Such mandated technical controls proactively support the HIC principle and strengthen accountability beyond mere legal obligation.
Recommendation 3: Harmonising National AVT Standards
To cement its position as a global leader, the UK must address the current risk of regulatory friction caused by its decentralised structure. The outcomes and recommendations derived from the AI Airlock must be leveraged by the National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare to synthesise a unified, cross-sectoral, and enforceable national standard for AVT adoption. This framework must seamlessly integrate MHRA medical device classification, ICO data protection requirements, and NHS DTAC clinical safety criteria into a single, comprehensive guidance document. Harmonizing these standards will preserve the agility of the learning process while offering the regulatory clarity and coherence required to attract international investment and establish a globally trusted blueprint for the governance of Ambient Voice Technologies.
Nelson Advisors > MedTech and HealthTech M&A
Nelson Advisors specialise in mergers, acquisitions and partnerships for Digital Health, HealthTech, Health IT, Consumer HealthTech, Healthcare Cybersecurity, Healthcare AI companies based in the UK, Europe and North America. www.nelsonadvisors.co.uk
Nelson Advisors regularly publish Healthcare Technology thought leadership articles covering market insights, trends, analysis & predictions @ https://www.healthcare.digital
We share our views on the latest Healthcare Technology mergers, acquisitions and partnerships with insights, analysis and predictions in our LinkedIn Newsletter every week, subscribe today! https://lnkd.in/e5hTp_xb
Founders for Founders > We pride ourselves on our DNA as ‘HealthTech entrepreneurs advising HealthTech entrepreneurs.’ Nelson Advisors partner with entrepreneurs, boards and investors to maximise shareholder value and investment returns. www.nelsonadvisors.co.uk
#NelsonAdvisors #HealthTech #DigitalHealth #HealthIT #Cybersecurity #HealthcareAI #ConsumerHealthTech #Mergers #Acquisitions #Partnerships #Growth #Strategy #NHS #UK #Europe #USA #VentureCapital #PrivateEquity #Founders #BuySide #SellSide#Divestitures #Corporate #Portfolio #Optimisation #SeriesA #SeriesB #Founders #SellSide #TechAssets #Fundraising#BuildBuyPartner #GoToMarket #PharmaTech #BioTech #Genomics #MedTech
Nelson Advisors LLP
Hale House, 76-78 Portland Place, Marylebone, London, W1B 1NT
Meet Us @ HealthTech events
Digital Health Rewired > 18-19th March 2025 > Birmingham, UK
NHS ConfedExpo > 11-12th June 2025 > Manchester, UK
HLTH Europe > 16-19th June 2025, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Barclays Health Elevate > 25th June 2025, London, UK
HIMSS AI in Healthcare > 10-11th July 2025, New York, USA
Bits & Pretzels > 29th Sept-1st Oct 2025, Munich, Germany
World Health Summit 2025 > October 12-14th 2025, Berlin, Germany
HealthInvestor Healthcare Summit > October 16th 2025, London, UK
HLTH USA 2025 > October 18th-22nd 2025, Las Vegas, USA
Web Summit 2025 > 10th-13th November 2025, Lisbon, Portugal
MEDICA 2025 > November 11-14th 2025, Düsseldorf, Germany
Venture Capital World Summit > 2nd December 2025, Toronto, Canada
Comments