Will AI replace Generalist medical practitioners?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 71 official task statements scored for Generalist medical practitioners (United Kingdom, SOC 2211), 14% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 33 out of 100 (range 26–39, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Generalist medical practitioners” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Understand the common causes and consequences of prescribing errors” (72/100, high); “Stay informed about new medicines and updates in pharmacy practice” (72/100, high); “Record patient information for medical records” (66/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Generalist medical practitioners” stay human?

About 64% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Perform surgeries on patients to repair injuries or treat diseases” (0/100, minimal); “Administer medical tests to diagnose and monitor patient health” (0/100, minimal); “Operate specialised clinics to diagnose and treat conditions such as asthma, diabetes, heart problems, and skin disorders” (4/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Generalist medical practitioners” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 14% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 64% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Generalist medical practitioners calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 71 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

UK dataswitch to US

Generalist medical practitioners

recording patient information for medical records, achieving government-set targets for specific treatments like child immunisations and monitoring and evaluating patient progress to adjust treatment plans. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: administering medical tests to diagnose and monitor patient health is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 14%
changing shape: 21%
staying human: 64%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 33 out of 100 (26–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 71 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for generalist medical practitioners is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

What shifts is recording patient information for medical records. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.

Your week, as this page understands it

Generalist medical practitioners diagnose mental and physical injuries, disorders and diseases, prescribe and give treatment, recommend preventative action, and conduct medical education and research activities. They work in hospitals or in general practice and, where necessary, refer the patient to a specialist. The job title says “generalist medical practitioners”. The real job is the part underneath: administering medical tests to diagnose and monitor patient health. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But generalist medical practitioners is not one task. It is 71 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is administering medical tests to diagnose and monitor patient health, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 14%
changing shape: 21%
staying human: 64%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

10 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Recording patient information for medical records
This is reading one thing and writing another: patient information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2211/01
Source: “Record patient information for medical records.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up the consultation is note-taking that speech and summarising tools already do well, with the doctor checking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recording patient information, including identification, medical history and examination results
This is reading one thing and writing another: patient information, including identification in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2211/01
Source: “Record patient information, including identification, medical history, and examination results.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Recording identification, history and findings is structured note-taking that software drafts reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying groups at risk for specific preventable diseases or injuries
This is reading one thing and writing another: groups in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2211/02
Source: “Identify groups at risk for specific preventable diseases or injuries.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Finding at-risk groups is population data analysis, exactly what analytical tools are built for.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing information about potential health hazards and interventions to the public
This is reading one thing and writing another: information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2211/02
Source: “Provide information about potential health hazards and interventions to the public.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 61 out of 100 (54–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Public health information is abundantly documented and straightforward to write clearly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

Changing shape

16 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Maintaining accurate and confidential patient or client records
The software now makes the first pass at accurate, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2211/01
Source: “Maintain accurate and confidential patient or client records.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Notes can be drafted automatically, but a GP must own and confirm what goes into the patient's record.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing and recommending specific interventions to alter behaviours linked to health risks
The software now makes the first pass at specific interventions, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2211/02
Source: “Develop and recommend specific interventions to alter behaviours linked to health risks.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Behaviour-change plans are well documented and can be drafted from evidence, with the clinician choosing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Referring patients to other healthcare practitioners
The software now makes the first pass at patients, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2211/01
Source: “Refer patients to other healthcare practitioners as necessary.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Referral letters follow set formats and can be drafted from the record, with the doctor responsible for sending them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

45 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Diagnosing patients' medical conditions
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients' medical conditions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2211/01
Source: “Diagnose patients' medical conditions using records, reports, test results, and examination information.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (19–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Records and results can be analysed by computer, but the diagnosis itself must be made by a registered doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interviewing patients to obtain their medical histories
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2211/01
Source: “Interview patients to obtain their medical histories.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: History-taking is structured questioning, but patients open up to a person they are speaking with.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Prescribing medications to treat various health conditions
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for medications, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2211/01
Source: “Prescribe medications to treat various health conditions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Only a registered prescriber may lawfully issue a prescription, whatever software suggests.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 61 tasks

Understanding the common causes and consequences of prescribing errors
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: the common causes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2211/01
Source: “Understand the common causes and consequences of prescribing errors.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Prescribing error causes are thoroughly documented and easy to summarise from published sources.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Staying informed about new medicines and updates in pharmacy practice
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: informed in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2211/01
Source: “Stay informed about new medicines and updates in pharmacy practice.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping up with new medicines is reading and summarising published sources, which tools do quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing government and organisational reports on birth
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: government in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2211/01
Source: “Prepare government and organisational reports on birth, death, and disease statistics, workforce evaluations, or the medical status of individuals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Statistical returns are drawn from practice systems in set formats, which software assembles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing or using surveillance tools
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: surveillance tools in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2211/02
Source: “Design or use surveillance tools, like screening and lab reports, to identify health risks.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Designing screening and surveillance around available reports is data work software supports strongly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Assessing the effectiveness of prescribed risk reduction measures or other interventions
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: the effectiveness of prescribed risk reduction measures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2211/02
Source: “Assess the effectiveness of prescribed risk reduction measures or other interventions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Judging whether measures worked is evaluation against recorded data, which analysis tools do well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing preventive health reports, problem descriptions
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: preventive health reports, problem descriptions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 55 · 2211/02
Source: “Prepare preventive health reports including problem descriptions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Preventive health reports follow set structures and can be drafted from collected data.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Applying scientific method and approaches to medical research
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at scientific method, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 50 · 2211/01
Source: “Apply scientific method and approaches to medical research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Applying research methods is well documented and strongly supported by analysis tools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Integrating these approaches with a range of information sources used for care decisions
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at these approaches, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2211/01
Source: “Integrate these approaches with a range of information sources used for care decisions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Pulling several information sources together for a care decision is exactly what retrieval tools do well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Drafting and sending reports and official correspondence
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at reports, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2211/01
Source: “Draft and send reports and official correspondence.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Clinical letters draft well from the record, but the GP must approve what is sent.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Organising preventative medical programmes tailored for individual patients
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at preventative medical programmes, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 65 · 2211/01
Source: “Organise preventative medical programmes tailored for individual patients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Tailored prevention plans can be drafted from the record and guidelines, with the doctor deciding.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Requesting diagnostic tests to identify and assess patient's condition
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at diagnostic tests, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2211/01
Source: “Request diagnostic tests to identify and assess patient's condition.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (40–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Test requests follow protocols and can be drafted, but ordering them is a registered doctor’s decision.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising patients, parents or guardians and community members concerning diet, activity, hygiene and disease prevention
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at patients, parents or guardians and community members, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2211/01
Source: “Advise patients, parents or guardians, and community members concerning diet, activity, hygiene, and disease prevention.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Prevention advice is well documented and drafts easily, though patients act on it because their GP said it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Using information effectively and safely in a medical context
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at information, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2211/01
Source: “Use information effectively and safely in a medical context.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Handling medical information safely is largely a documented process, though clinical responsibility stays with the doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting applied research to enhance the evidence base in healthcare practices
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at applied research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 55 · 2211/01
Source: “Conduct applied research to enhance the evidence base in healthcare practices.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Research design and analysis are well supported by tools, though gathering the data needs people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in quality improvement and researching activities
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at quality improvement, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 55 · 2211/01
Source: “Participate in quality improvement and research activities.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Improvement work is largely data analysis and written proposals drawn from practice records.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recording comprehensive patients' histories with an emphasis on occupation or environmental risks
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at comprehensive patients' histories, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 50 · 2211/02
Source: “Record comprehensive patients' histories with an emphasis on occupation or environmental risks.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Recording an occupational and environmental history is structured note-taking, though the details come from the patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending medicines, vaccinations and specialised medical care for disease or injury
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at medicines, vaccinations and specialised medical care, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2211/01
Source: “Recommend medicines, vaccinations, and specialised medical care for disease or injury.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Recommendations can be drafted from guidelines, but the clinical decision must come from a registered doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing health programmes in collaboration with educational and community organisations
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at health programmes, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2211/01
Source: “Develop health programmes in collaboration with educational and community organisations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Building programmes with schools and community groups depends on working relationships with those organisations.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating the activities of statisticians and other professional staff in healthcare research
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at the activities of statisticians, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2211/02
Source: “Coordinate the activities of statisticians and other professional staff in healthcare research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Coordinating a research team is mostly scheduling and written direction between colleagues.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Signing repeat prescriptions, death certificates and fitting notes
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for repeat prescriptions, death certificates and fitting notes, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2211/01
Source: “Sign repeat prescriptions, death certificates, and fit notes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (34–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The signature itself is a legal act only a registered doctor can make.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating activities of medical specialists and therapists
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles activities of medical specialists and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2211/01
Source: “Coordinate activities of medical specialists and therapists.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Coordinating specialists and therapists is mostly scheduling and correspondence between professionals.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing training on preventative medicine issues to medical staff
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles preventative medicine issues and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 2211/02
Source: “Provide training on preventative medicine issues to medical staff.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training material is quick to prepare, though sessions are delivered to staff in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing general health advice to patients in person
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for general health advice, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2211/01
Source: “Provide general health advice to patients in person.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: General health advice is well documented, but this task specifies giving it to the patient in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Advising patients on rehabilitation exercises for long-term recovery
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2211/01
Source: “Advise patients on rehabilitation exercises for long-term recovery.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Rehabilitation exercise advice is well documented, though patients follow it better when a clinician explains it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Promoting safe practices to ensure patient safety
staying human
The ratings behind this row put safe practices well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 75 · 2211/01
Source: “Promote safe practices to ensure patient safety.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Safety promotion is largely written guidance and audit, with some on-site checking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Implementing and administering healthcare programmes
staying human
The ratings behind this row put healthcare programmes well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 65 · 2211/01
Source: “Implement and administer healthcare programmes, including personnel administration and staff training.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Running a programme involves scheduling, records and training materials, with some on-site organising.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Implementing health service delivery systems to improve health outcomes
staying human
The ratings behind this row put health service delivery systems well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 70 · 2211/02
Source: “Implement health service delivery systems to improve health outcomes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Putting service changes in place mixes planning documents with practical work in the organisation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Overseeing education on sewage and waste disposal
staying human
The ratings behind this row put education well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 65 · 2211/02
Source: “Oversee education on sewage and waste disposal, insect control, and immunisations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Public health education material is well documented, though overseeing delivery involves local organising.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing programmes on nutrition, food service sanitation and water supply safety
staying human
The ratings behind this row put programmes well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 60 · 2211/02
Source: “Manage programmes on nutrition, food service sanitation, and water supply safety.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Running nutrition and sanitation programmes mixes documented planning with practical organising.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating patient care with medical professionals in community and hospital settings
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patient care, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2211/01
Source: “Coordinate patient care with medical professionals in community and hospital settings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Coordinating care between services is mostly correspondence and scheduling between professionals.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching diseases and managing infection outbreaks
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for diseases, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2211/02
Source: “Research diseases and manage infection outbreaks.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reading the research is easy; running an outbreak response needs people on the ground and clinical authority.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Overseeing prevention programmes in areas like occupational health and environmental medicine
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for prevention programmes, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2211/02
Source: “Oversee prevention programmes in areas like occupational health and environmental medicine.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Overseeing prevention programmes mixes documented planning with clinical responsibility for the decisions.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Integrating resources from various organisations to enhance community health
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles resources and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2211/02
Source: “Integrate resources from various organisations to enhance community health.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Bringing organisations together depends on relationships and local knowledge of who does what.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Diagnosing patients' symptoms and referring to specialist consultants
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients' symptoms, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2211/01
Source: “Diagnose patients' symptoms and refer to specialist consultants if needed.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (19–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Sorting symptoms and choosing a referral is largely information work, but the decision belongs to a registered doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Explaining procedures, test results and treatments to patients
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for procedures, test results and treatments, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2211/01
Source: “Explain procedures, test results, and treatments to patients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Explanations can be drafted clearly, but patients take reassurance from the doctor telling them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Responding to the client's questions and concerns about their diagnosis and treatment
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the client's questions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2211/01
Source: “Respond to the client's questions and concerns about their diagnosis and treatment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Clear answers can be drafted, but worried patients want them from the clinician they know.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Achieving government-set targets for specific treatments like child immunisations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: government-set targets, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2211/01
Source: “Achieve government-set targets for specific treatments like child immunisations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Hitting immunisation targets needs call-and-recall admin alongside actually giving the vaccinations.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Incorporating compassionate self-care into personal and professional life
staying human
The ratings behind this row put compassionate self-care well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 70 · 2211/01
Source: “Incorporate compassionate self-care into personal and professional life.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: Looking after your own wellbeing is something a person does, not a document that can be produced for them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Looking after own health and wellbeing
staying human
The ratings behind this row put after own health well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 60 · 2211/01
Source: “Look after own health and wellbeing, seeking appropriate support where necessary.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: Looking after your own health is personal action rather than something that can be produced for you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Monitoring and evaluating patient progress to adjust treatment plans
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patient progress, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2211/01
Source: “Monitor and evaluate patient progress to adjust treatment plans.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Changing a treatment plan is a prescribing-level decision the GP must make and own.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Prescribing medicines safely, appropriately, effectively and economically
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for medicines safely, appropriately, effectively, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2211/01
Source: “Prescribe medicines safely, appropriately, effectively, and economically.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Prescribing safely and economically is a legal act reserved to registered prescribers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supporting patients as an advocate by facilitating communication with healthcare providers to inform their healthcare decisions
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2211/01
Source: “Support patients as an advocate by facilitating communication with healthcare providers to inform their healthcare decisions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advocating for a patient works through personal relationships with them and with other services.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Teaching at medical schools or hospitals
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: medical schools, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 2211/01
Source: “Teach at medical schools or hospitals as required.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching sessions can be prepared easily, but they are delivered to a room of students.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training healthcare professionals in medical practices
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: healthcare professionals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 55 · 2211/01
Source: “Train healthcare professionals in medical practices.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training colleagues can be prepared easily, but it happens with people in a room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Delivering presentations to lay or professional audiences
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles presentations and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 65 · 2211/02
Source: “Deliver presentations to lay or professional audiences.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Preparing slides is easy for software, but standing up and holding an audience is a person's job.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Diagnosing and managing clinical presentations collaboratively with patients and colleagues in various care settings
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clinical presentations, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2211/01
Source: “Diagnose and manage clinical presentations collaboratively with patients and colleagues in various care settings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working out and managing a case with the patient must be done by a registered doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing and identifying risks related to safeguarding and vulnerability in patients
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for risks, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2211/01
Source: “Assess and identify risks related to safeguarding and vulnerability in patients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Safeguarding judgements carry legal weight and must be made by the responsible clinician who knows the case.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing activities of nurses and healthcare assistants
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for activities of nurses, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2211/01
Source: “Direct activities of nurses and healthcare assistants.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Directing nursing colleagues day to day happens in the practice, between people who work together.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Seeking support from colleagues to manage the complex nature of illness and health inequalities confidently
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles support and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2211/01
Source: “Seek support from colleagues to manage the complex nature of illness and health inequalities confidently.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Seeking support from colleagues works through personal relationships with people who know the pressures.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing the patient care activities of nursing staff
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the patient care activities of nursing staff, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 50 · 2211/02
Source: “Direct the patient care activities of nursing staff.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Directing nursing work day to day happens between colleagues in the same building.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Applying knowledge and judgement to complex situations to inform decision-making for effective patient-centred care
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for knowledge, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2211/01
Source: “Apply knowledge and judgement to complex situations to inform decision-making for effective patient-centred care.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Complex judgement calls sit with the registered doctor who knows the patient and carries the responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with colleagues and the multidisciplinary team in treatment planning
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for colleagues, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2211/01
Source: “Collaborate with colleagues and the multidisciplinary team in treatment planning.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Treatment plans are agreed between clinicians who each carry responsibility for the patient's care.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Discussing the development of new pharmaceutical products with pharmaceutical sales representatives
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the development of new pharmaceutical products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 2211/01
Source: “Discuss the development of new pharmaceutical products with pharmaceutical sales representatives.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: These conversations are meetings between people, and much of what matters is not written down.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with patients and a multidisciplinary healthcare team to provide patient-centred care
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2211/01
Source: “Collaborate with patients and a multidisciplinary healthcare team to provide patient-centred care.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Joint decisions with the patient and the wider team depend on live discussion between people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Carrying out initial consultations on a one-to-one basis with patients to assess their health and get a detailed case history from them
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: initial consultations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2211/01
Source: “Carry out initial consultations on a one-to-one basis with patients to assess their health and get a detailed case history from them.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A first consultation rests on the patient trusting the doctor in front of them, and only a registered doctor can do it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Observing and assessing the work of trainee GPs and medical students
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the work of trainee gps, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2211/01
Source: “Observe and assess the work of trainee GPs and medical students.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Assessing a trainee means watching them work with real patients and discussing it afterwards.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Training medical students in clinical procedures to develop their practical skills
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: medical students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 2211/01
Source: “Train medical students in clinical procedures to develop their practical skills.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching a practical procedure means guiding someone’s hands in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Prescribing or administering therapy and medication to treat or prevent illness
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: therapy, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2211/01
Source: “Prescribe or administer therapy and medication to treat or prevent illness.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Giving an injection or therapy is hands-on, and prescribing is reserved to registered prescribers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Operating specialised clinics to diagnose and treat conditions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: specialised clinics, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2211/01
Source: “Operate specialised clinics to diagnose and treat conditions such as asthma, diabetes, heart problems, and skin disorders.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running a clinic means examining patients in the room and deciding treatment as a registered doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Administering medical tests to diagnose and monitor patient health
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: medical tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2211/01
Source: “Administer medical tests to diagnose and monitor patient health.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Taking samples and carrying out tests on a patient is hands-on clinical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing surgeries on patients to repair injuries or treat diseases
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: surgeries, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 2211/01
Source: “Perform surgeries on patients to repair injuries or treat diseases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Surgery is hands-on work only a qualified surgeon may perform.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: £55,500a year, before tax, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.ashe-t14, 2025 · ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
How we know this
Source: ashe-t14
Reference period: ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)
Rounding: Shown to the nearest £100. The exact published figure is in the downloadable dataset. We do not render pounds the survey cannot support.
People doing this job: 197,900in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: patient information in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: recording patient information for medical records and recording patient information, including identification, medical history and examination results. What it cannot do is be answerable: medical tests need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: administering medical tests to diagnose and monitor patient health is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 14% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 21% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 64% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 71 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Recording patient information for medical records is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to patient information, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether medical tests are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no licence needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near maintaining accurate and confidential patient or client records. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to generalist medical practitioners (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was registered children's nurses: only about 12% of its durable work is work you already do, it pays 24.4% less and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 33/100 here, with only 14% of the task list in the top band, and “carry out initial consultations on a one-to-one basis with patients to assess…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Registered children's nurses
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “request diagnostic tests to identify and assess patient's condition”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 12% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 12% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: £41,963 against your £55,494, 24.4% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 42,200 of those jobs against 197,900 of yours (ONS via Nomis), 21% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Registered community nurses
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already explain procedures, test results, and treatments to patients, and their equivalent is to explain test results and treatments options to patients. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £40,897 against your £55,494, 26.3% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Physiotherapists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “carry out initial consultations on a one-to-one basis with patients to assess their health and get…”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 7% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £43,532 against your £55,494, 21.6% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 14% of its task weight, across 71 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like administering medical tests to diagnose and monitor patient health arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Cardiologists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United States page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

In US official statistics this job is counted as Cardiologists, Dermatologists, Emergency Medicine Physicians, Family Medicine Physicians, General Internal Medicine Physicians, Neurologists, Pediatricians, General, Physicians, Pathologists, Radiologists, Physicians, All Other and Ophthalmologists, Except Pediatric. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

In England:
National Careers Service
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Skills Bootcamps
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers Wales
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for generalist medical practitioners, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 14% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for generalist medical practitioners. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for generalist medical practitioners launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for generalist medical practitioners yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for generalist medical practitioners existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for generalist medical practitioners launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Generalist medical practitioners?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 71 official task statements scored for Generalist medical practitioners (United Kingdom, SOC 2211), 14% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 33 out of 100 (range 26–39, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Generalist medical practitioners” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Understand the common causes and consequences of prescribing errors” (72/100, high); “Stay informed about new medicines and updates in pharmacy practice” (72/100, high); “Record patient information for medical records” (66/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Generalist medical practitioners” stay human?: About 64% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Perform surgeries on patients to repair injuries or treat diseases” (0/100, minimal); “Administer medical tests to diagnose and monitor patient health” (0/100, minimal); “Operate specialised clinics to diagnose and treat conditions such as asthma, diabetes, heart problems, and skin disorders” (4/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Generalist medical practitioners” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 14% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 64% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Generalist medical practitioners calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 71 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: ashe-t14 (ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025))nomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.