Will AI replace Registered nurse practitioners?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 53 official task statements scored for Registered nurse practitioners (United Kingdom, SOC 2234), 7% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 26 out of 100 (range 20–32, 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 “Registered nurse practitioners” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain accurate and confidential patient or client records” (81/100, very high); “Record mentoring activities ensuring confidentiality and safeguarding” (81/100, very high); “Develop practice protocols for mental health problems, based on review and evaluation of published research” (72/100, 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 “Registered nurse practitioners” stay human?

About 75% 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: “Approach distressed patients in a non-threatening manner” (0/100, minimal); “Administer psychiatric medications and injections” (0/100, minimal); “Participate in group therapy sessions individually and with other health professionals” (1/100, 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 “Registered nurse practitioners” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 7% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 75% 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 Registered nurse 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 53 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

Registered nurse practitioners

administering psychiatric assessments to evaluate mental health conditions, developing practice protocols for mental health problems and producing care plans and risk assessments. 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 psychiatric medications and injections 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: 7%
changing shape: 18%
staying human: 75%

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

Whole-job exposure score 26 out of 100 (20–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 53 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 registered nurse 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 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

What shifts is maintaining accurate and confidential patient or client records. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.

Your week, as this page understands it

Registered nurse practitioners provide nursing care for the sick, injured and others in need of such care, assist medical doctors with their tasks and also provide care independently, including diagnosing patients, the ordering and interpretation of tests, the determination of treatment and prescription of medication. The job title says “registered nurse practitioners”. The real job is the part underneath: administering psychiatric medications and injections. 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 registered nurse practitioners is not one task. It is 53 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is administering psychiatric medications and injections, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 7%
changing shape: 18%
staying human: 75%

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 2026-08-05. 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

4 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.

Maintaining accurate and confidential patient or client records
This is reading one thing and writing another: accurate in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Maintain accurate and confidential patient or client records.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very 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 records accurate and up to date is routine documentation that software already handles reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Developing practice protocols for mental health problems
This is reading one thing and writing another: practice protocols in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Develop practice protocols for mental health problems, based on review and evaluation of published research.” (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: Reviewing published research and turning it into a written protocol is exactly the kind of document work software does 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 4/4.
Monitoring medical supplies stock levels
This is reading one thing and writing another: medical supplies stock levels in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2234/01
Source: “Monitor medical supplies stock levels.” (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: Watching stock levels is straightforward record-keeping software already does, apart from checking the cupboard itself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Recording mentoring activities ensuring confidentiality and safeguarding
This is reading one thing and writing another: activities ensuring confidentiality in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2234/01
Source: “Record mentoring activities ensuring confidentiality and safeguarding.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Logging mentoring sessions and keeping those records confidential is straightforward record-keeping that software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.

Changing shape

10 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.

Producing care plans and risk assessments
The software now makes the first pass at care plans, 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 · 2234/01
Source: “Produce care plans and risk assessments.” (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: Care plans and risk assessments follow standard formats and can be drafted from records, though a registered nurse makes the final judgement.
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.
Writing confidential client case notes and reports
The software now makes the first pass at confidential client case notes, 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 · 2234/01
Source: “Write confidential client case notes and reports.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Drafting case notes from consultation information is writing work software does well, though the nurse stays accountable.
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.
Recording patients' health histories, symptoms, physical conditions or other diagnostic information
The software now makes the first pass at patients' health histories, symptoms, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Record patients' health histories, symptoms, physical conditions, or other diagnostic information.” (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: Turning a consultation into a clinical record is exactly what note-writing software now handles well.
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.

Staying human

39 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.

Administering psychiatric assessments to evaluate mental health conditions
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychiatric assessments, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2234/01
Source: “Administer psychiatric assessments to evaluate mental health conditions.” (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: Questionnaires can be delivered digitally, but a mental health assessment guiding care must be carried out by a registered practitioner.
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.
Conducting individual psychotherapy for those with chronic or acute mental health conditions
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for individual psychotherapy, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2234/01
Source: “Conduct individual psychotherapy for those with chronic or acute mental health conditions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 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: Therapy depends on a trusted relationship built face to face with a registered practitioner, which software cannot stand in for.
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 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Writing prescriptions for psychotropic medications as allowed by regulations and collaborative practice agreements
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for prescriptions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Write prescriptions for psychotropic medications as allowed by regulations and collaborative practice agreements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (28–36 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 wording of a prescription is easy to generate, but only a registered prescriber may legally issue one.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 43 tasks

Referring people to community support services
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at people, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2234/01
Source: “Refer people to community support services as needed.” (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: Matching someone to local services is mostly looking up what is available and writing the referral.
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.
Ensuring compliance with legal requirements for specific settings or patient groups
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at compliance, 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 70 · 2234/01
Source: “Ensure compliance with legal requirements for specific settings or patient groups.” (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: Checking work against written rules suits software well, though a registered professional still signs it off.
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.
Designing and implementing programmes to promote health awareness
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at programmes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2234/01
Source: “Design and implement programmes to promote health awareness.” (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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Health awareness campaigns are largely design and content work that software produces well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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 3/4.
Coordinating employee workshops, courses or training on mental health issues
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at employee workshops, courses, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2234/01
Source: “Coordinate employee workshops, courses, or training on mental health issues.” (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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Planning training sessions and writing the materials is mostly desk work that software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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 3/4.
Interpreting information obtained from electrocardiograms
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 60 · 2234/01
Source: “Interpret information obtained from electrocardiograms (ECGs) or radiographs (x-rays).” (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: Reading these traces and images is something software now does well, but a registered professional must sign the interpretation.
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.
Implementing strategies for managing own caseloads to ensure effective patient care
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at strategies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2234/01
Source: “Implement strategies for managing own caseloads to ensure effective patient care.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 44 out of 100 (37–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Prioritising and scheduling a caseload is planning work software supports, though the clinical judgement stays with the nurse.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Referring patients to other healthcare practitioners
changing shape
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 · 2234/01
Source: “Refer patients to other healthcare practitioners as necessary.” (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: Referral letters can be drafted automatically, but the decision to refer belongs to the registered practitioner seeing the patient.
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.
Providing low-intensity interventions, such as psycho-educational interventions, guided self-help and computerised CBT
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for low-intensity interventions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Provide low-intensity interventions, such as psycho-educational interventions, guided self-help and computerised CBT.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 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: This is already partly delivered by software, though a trained practitioner normally supports and supervises it.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing and implementing treatment plans
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Develop and implement treatment plans.” (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: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can draft a plan from guidelines, but deciding and starting a patient's treatment is the practitioner's own responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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.
Tracking medication adherence and effects in mental health patients
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for medication adherence, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Track medication adherence and effects in mental health patients.” (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: 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: Tracking doses and side effects is record-keeping software handles, though a registered nurse judges what to do.
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 3/4.
Educating patients and their families about mental health problems in collaboration with carers
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Educate patients and their families about mental health problems in collaboration with carers.” (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: 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: The explaining material is easy to produce, but families take it in through someone they already trust.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in multidisciplinary meetings to review patient treatment plans and referrals
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for multidisciplinary meetings, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Participate in multidisciplinary meetings to review patient treatment plans and referrals.” (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: Notes and summaries can be prepared automatically, but the clinical judgement brought to the meeting comes from a registered practitioner.
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.
Educating family members or carers on patient care
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles members and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Educate family members or carers on patient care as appropriate.” (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: 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: Written guidance for carers can be produced automatically, but teaching a worried family how to cope needs a 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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing outreach activities in the local community
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles outreach activities and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2234/01
Source: “Develop outreach activities in the local community.” (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: Software can plan outreach, but what actually works depends on local knowledge and people in the community.
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.
Implementing and promoting programmes that support mental health across the entire school community
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles programmes and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2234/01
Source: “Implement and promote programmes that support mental health across the entire school community.” (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 same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Programme materials are easy to produce, but making one work across a school depends on people on the ground.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Teaching behaviour modification classes
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: behaviour modification classes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2234/01
Source: “Teach behaviour modification classes related to topics such as stress management or weight control.” (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 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: Class content is easy to produce, but the sessions themselves are taught to a group in a room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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 3/4.
Planning patient treatments in collaboration with members of multidisciplinary healthcare teams
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patient treatments, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Plan patient treatments in collaboration with members of multidisciplinary healthcare teams.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 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: Software can prepare the options, but team treatment decisions are made and owned by registered clinicians.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Distinguishing between physiologically- and psychologically-based disorders
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for physiologically-, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Distinguish between physiologically- and psychologically-based disorders, and diagnose appropriately.” (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 rating behind it: Software can suggest possible causes, but giving a patient a diagnosis is a decision the practitioner is accountable for.
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.
Informing patients and their families about mental health and medical conditions
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Inform patients and their families about mental health and medical conditions, preventative health measures, medicines, or treatment plans.” (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 explanations can be drafted automatically, but talking someone through a diagnosis depends on trust built face to face.
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.
Training individuals in self-management techniques for mental health
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles individuals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2234/01
Source: “Train individuals in self-management techniques for mental health.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The teaching material is easy to produce, but people learn these techniques from someone guiding them personally.
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 3/4.
Collaborating with mental health professionals and other agencies
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles mental health professionals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Collaborate with mental health professionals and other agencies as required.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 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: Most of this is meetings and calls between named professionals, though software can draft the letters and summaries.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.
Managing home healthcare services
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for home healthcare services, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2234/01
Source: “Manage home healthcare services.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low 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: Rotas, records and coordination can be software-supported, but running a care service still rests on registered staff.
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 2/4.
Providing evidence-based individual therapy, such as cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for evidence-based individual therapy, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Provide evidence-based individual therapy, such as cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Computerised therapy already works for milder cases, but most therapy still depends on a live therapeutic relationship.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Organising social events to develop patients' social skills and reduce feelings of isolation
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: social events, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2234/01
Source: “Organise social events to develop patients' social skills and reduce feelings of isolation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 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: Planning can be done at a desk, but running social activities that help people connect needs someone there with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing patients to evaluate their health condition
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Assess patients to evaluate their health condition.” (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 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: Part of assessment is asking questions, but examining a patient and judging their condition needs a registered practitioner present.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Involving family members or carers in patient care decisions
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles members and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Involve family members or carers in patient care decisions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 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: Bringing families into decisions depends on trust built with them in person, not on producing a document.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 patients de-escalation techniques to manage emotions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patients de-escalation techniques, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2234/01
Source: “Teach patients de-escalation techniques to manage emotions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 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: Materials exist, but practising calming techniques with a distressed patient depends on a trusted person working alongside them.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Evaluating patients' behaviour to formulate diagnoses or assessing treatments
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patients' behaviour, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Evaluate patients' behaviour to formulate diagnoses or assess treatments.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Reading someone's behaviour means being in the room, and the diagnosis is a registered clinician's call.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Seeing patients for routine mental health check-ups to monitor progress and adjust treatment plans
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “See patients for routine mental health check-ups to monitor progress and adjust treatment plans.” (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: 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: Check-ups depend on seeing the person, and on a registered clinician deciding whether treatment should change.
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 3/4.
Discussing the best way to plan and deliver their care
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the best way, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2234/01
Source: “Discuss the best way to plan and deliver their 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: Agreeing care together is a conversation whose value comes from the patient trusting the person having it.
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.
Attending conferences and seminars for professional development
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: conferences, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2234/01
Source: “Attend conferences and seminars for professional development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 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.
The rating behind it: Attending events to learn is something the practitioner does in person; software cannot do the learning for them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Assessing patient conditions to determine an appropriate course of therapeutic treatment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patient conditions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Assess patient conditions to determine an appropriate course of therapeutic treatment.” (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 someone properly means being with them, and the treatment decision must come from a registered clinician.
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.
Attempting to understand the source of patients' discomfort
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: understand the source of patients' discomfort, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2234/01
Source: “Attempt to understand the source of patients' discomfort.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 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: Working out what is troubling someone comes from being with them, and from a relationship they trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Offering specialist health checks, such as blood pressure and cholesterol monitoring and diabetes screening
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: specialist health checks, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2234/01
Source: “Offer specialist health checks, such as blood pressure and cholesterol monitoring and diabetes screening.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Taking a blood pressure or blood sample is physical, though software can help interpret the readings.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Undertaking early interventions in schools and colleges
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: interventions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2234/01
Source: “Undertake early interventions in schools and colleges.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 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: Early help means working directly with a young person, and a qualified practitioner has to make the calls.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Offering therapy and treatments for issues relating to a range of mental health conditions
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for therapy, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Offer therapy and treatments for issues relating to a range of mental health conditions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high 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: Therapy works through the relationship with the person delivering it, and treatment decisions sit with a registered practitioner.
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 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing children with learning difficulties
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: children, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2234/01
Source: “Assess children with learning difficulties.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 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 child means being with them, and the assessment must be made by a qualified practitioner.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Maintaining effective professional relationships with educational staff and social care colleagues
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles effective professional relationships and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2234/01
Source: “Maintain effective professional relationships with educational staff and social care colleagues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–10 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: Working relationships between named colleagues are built by people over time, not produced as a document.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · 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 1/4.
Establishing and maintaining trust with patients to support their treatment
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles trust and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Establish and maintain trust with patients to support their treatment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 2 out of 100 (0–6 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Trust between a nurse and a patient is a human relationship, which software cannot supply.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Building meaningful therapeutic relationships with children and young people through effective communication
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles meaningful therapeutic relationships and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Build meaningful therapeutic relationships with children and young people through effective communication.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 2 out of 100 (0–6 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A relationship with a child is built by a real person over time and cannot be produced by software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Participating in group therapy sessions individually and with other health professionals
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: group therapy sessions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Participate in group therapy sessions individually and with other health professionals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 1 out of 100 (0–8 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: Being part of a therapy group means a real person in the room with the others.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Administering psychiatric medications and injections
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: psychiatric medications, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2234/01
Source: “Administer psychiatric medications and injections.” (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: Giving an injection or handing over medication is a physical act carried out by a registered nurse.
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.
Approaching distressed patients in a non-threatening manner
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: distressed patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2234/01
Source: “Approach distressed patients in a non-threatening manner.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 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: Approaching a distressed person calmly is about your physical presence and manner in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: £46,100a 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: 91,500in 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: practice protocols in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining accurate and confidential patient or client records and developing practice protocols for mental health problems. What it cannot do is be answerable: psychiatric medications 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 psychiatric medications and injections is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 7% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 18% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 75% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 53 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. Maintaining accurate and confidential patient or client 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 practice protocols, 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 psychiatric medications 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 producing care plans and risk assessments. 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

You did not come here for a career change and I am not selling you one. But one road out of here is worth knowing about, so here it is with the bill attached.

Registered nurse practitionersRegistered mental health nurses
a year or morematched on shared tasks
One of the tasks on your list is on theirs in the same words: “administer psychiatric medications and injections”. Take both published task lists together and about 41% of the work in that job that the software is not taking is work you are doing today.
About 41% of it you could do on Monday. But you would be doing it for slightly less money, so want it for the work.
The work the two jobs share
- You already do
  “Administer psychiatric medications and injections.”
  They do
  “Administer psychiatric medications and injections.”
- You already do
  “Conduct individual psychotherapy for those with chronic or acute mental health conditions.”
  They do
  “Conduct individual psychotherapy for those with chronic or acute mental health conditions.”
- You already do
  “Establish and maintain trust with patients to support their treatment.”
  They do
  “Establish and maintain trust with patients to support their treatment.”
What you would not already have: Nothing in your task list touches “administer prescribed oral medicines under the written direction of a doctor”, “provide nursing care to individuals with mental health conditions or emotional disturbances” or “administer hypodermic injections following doctor's prescriptions and hospital procedures”. That is the part you would be learning from scratch, and it is roughly the 59% of their durable work you do not already hold.
The honest bill
A pay cut: £42,700 against your £46,100 (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). I am saying the words: you would earn less. Decide that on purpose, not by accident.
- The licence gate: Default-closed. This release carries no licence-register snapshot, so I could not check whether that job is regulated, which means I have to assume it might be. Before you spend a penny, look it up on the GOV.UK register of regulated professions; the free routes below link straight to it. The route is banded a year or more because of that unknown, not in spite of it.
- The entry ticket: Typical entry-level education is published for only ten occupations in this release, and neither this job nor that one is among them. So I cannot tell you whether a qualification stands in the way. Treat that as an open question to settle before you commit, not as a green light.
- What the pay gap is telling you: £42,692 against your £46,069, 7.3% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). I am saying the words: you would earn slightly less. Decide that on purpose.
- What you live on meanwhile: Nobody is going to pay you to retrain. This is evenings and weekends alongside the job you already have, for a year or more, and if that is not possible right now then this route is not open right now, which is worth knowing before you start. The free, government-funded careers service listed below will talk the funding through with you before you pay anyone.
- Is the target job itself holding up: Registered mental health nurses scores 17/100 on this site’s own exposure measure (minimal), with 8% of its tasks in the top band. Employment projections are not published for this occupation in this release, so this is the exposure leg of the check only. It passed, which is the only reason it is here.
How long: A year or more, part-time, alongside the job you have. That band is set by the unchecked licence question and by the 59% of their work you would be learning, not by any one course.
See what AI is doing to registered mental health nurses

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.

Clinical psychologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “offer therapy and treatments for issues relating to a range of mental health conditions”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 14% 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 14% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
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: “involve family members or carers in patient care decisions”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 10% 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 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Registered children's nurses
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already administer psychiatric medications and injections, and their equivalent is to administer medications and injections to patients in their care. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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: 7% of its task weight, across 53 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 psychiatric medications and injections 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 Registered Nurses 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 Registered Nurses, Nurse Anesthetists and Nurse Practitioners. 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 nurse practitioner, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

The working behind that

No healthcare Space; generalist rule blocks The AI Authority for regulated clinical work.

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 7% 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 nurse practitioner. 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.

Nearby moves

The jobs above, as pages you can read the same way as this one. Your job shares its core work with these. That is what the match is, and it is all it is.

Registered mental health nurses →About 41% of it you could do on Monday. But you would be doing it for slightly less money, so want it for the work.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for nurses and healthcare workers 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 nurses and healthcare workers 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 nurses and healthcare workers 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 nurses and healthcare workers 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 Registered nurse practitioners?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 53 official task statements scored for Registered nurse practitioners (United Kingdom, SOC 2234), 7% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 26 out of 100 (range 20–32, 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 “Registered nurse practitioners” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain accurate and confidential patient or client records” (81/100, very high); “Record mentoring activities ensuring confidentiality and safeguarding” (81/100, very high); “Develop practice protocols for mental health problems, based on review and evaluation of published research” (72/100, 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 “Registered nurse practitioners” stay human?: About 75% 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: “Approach distressed patients in a non-threatening manner” (0/100, minimal); “Administer psychiatric medications and injections” (0/100, minimal); “Participate in group therapy sessions individually and with other health professionals” (1/100, 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 “Registered nurse practitioners” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 7% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 75% 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 Registered nurse 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 53 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.