US dataswitch to UK
Emergency Medicine Physicians
evaluating patients' vital signs or laboratory data to determine emergency intervention needs and priority of treatment, analyzing records, examination information or testing results to diagnose medical conditions and consulting with hospitalists and other professionals. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: performing emergency resuscitations on patients is work software can't reach.
What shifts is evaluating patients' vital signs or laboratory data to determine emergency intervention needs and priority of treatment: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.
Your week, as this page understands it
Make immediate medical decisions and act to prevent death or further disability. Provide immediate recognition, evaluation, care, stabilization, and disposition of patients. May direct emergency medical staff in an emergency department. The job title says “emergency medicine physicians”. The real job is the part underneath: performing emergency resuscitations on patients. 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 emergency medicine physicians is not one task. It is 17 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is performing emergency resuscitations on patients, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 0%
- changing shape
- 23%
- staying human
- 77%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 20 out of 100 (15–26 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 17 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 emergency medicine physicians 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.
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.
- 3 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
0 tasksTasks 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.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Changing shape
4 tasksTasks 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.
Evaluating patients' vital signs or laboratory data to determine emergency intervention needs and priority of treatment
The software now makes the first pass at patients' vital signs, 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 5 · CoreSource: “Evaluate patients' vital signs or laboratory data to determine emergency intervention needs and priority of treatment.” (O*NET 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 vital signs and lab results is well-documented pattern work, but the emergency call must legally be a clinician’s.
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.
Analyzing records, examination information or testing results to diagnose medical conditions
The software now makes the first pass at records, examination information or testing results, 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 5 · CoreSource: “Analyze records, examination information, or test results to diagnose medical conditions.” (O*NET 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: Working through records and test results to reach a diagnosis is well documented, but the diagnosis must be a doctor’s.
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.
Collecting and recording patient information
The software now makes the first pass at patient information, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Collect and record patient information, such as medical history or examination results, in electronic or handwritten medical records.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (38–46 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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Capturing history and findings into the record is exactly what note-taking software now does 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.
Referring patients to specialists or other 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 4 · CoreSource: “Refer patients to specialists or other practitioners.” (O*NET 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: Choosing the right specialist is well-documented routing, but the referral itself is the doctor’s legal act.
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.
Staying human
13 tasksTasks 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.
Selecting, requesting, performing or interpreting diagnostic procedures, such as laboratory tests, electrocardiograms, emergency ultrasounds and radiographs
This work happens in the physical world: diagnostic procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Select, request, perform, or interpret diagnostic procedures, such as laboratory tests, electrocardiograms, emergency ultrasounds, and radiographs.” (O*NET 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software reads scans and traces well, but performing the test and ordering it remain a licensed doctor’s job.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing emergency resuscitations on patients
This work happens in the physical world: emergency resuscitations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Perform emergency resuscitations on patients.” (O*NET 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: Resuscitation is chest compressions, drugs and airway control done by people standing over the patient.
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 such medical procedures as emergent cricothyrotomy
This work happens in the physical world: medical procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Perform such medical procedures as emergent cricothyrotomy, endotracheal intubation, and emergency thoracotomy.” (O*NET 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: Cutting an airway or intubating is a physical procedure only a licensed doctor 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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Stabilizing patients in critical condition
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Stabilize patients in critical condition.” (O*NET 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: Stabilizing a critically ill patient is physical, immediate bedside care by a licensed clinician.
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.
Consulting with hospitalists and other professionals
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for hospitalists, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Consult with hospitalists and other professionals, such as social workers, regarding patients' hospital admission, continued observation, transition of care, or discharge.” (O*NET 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: Admission and discharge decisions are hashed out live between clinicians who carry the responsibility.
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.
Monitoring patients' conditions and reevaluate treatments
This work happens in the physical world: patients' conditions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Monitor patients' conditions, and reevaluate treatments, as necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 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: Monitors and software flag changes well, but reassessing and changing treatment happens at the bedside under a doctor’s licence.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 7 tasks
Identifying factors that may affect patient management
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for factors, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Identify factors that may affect patient management, such as age, gender, barriers to communication, and underlying disease.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 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: Spotting factors like age, language or existing illness that change care is documented reasoning 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 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Selecting and prescribing medications to address patient needs
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for medications, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Select and prescribe medications to address patient needs.” (O*NET 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 rating behind it: Drug choice is well documented and software suggests it well, but only a licensed prescriber may legally prescribe.
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.
Discussing patients' treatment plans with physicians and other medical professionals
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients' treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Discuss patients' treatment plans with physicians and other medical professionals.” (O*NET 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: Treatment plans are discussed live between professionals who share responsibility for the patient.
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.
Communicating likely outcomes of medical diseases or traumatic conditions to patients or their representatives
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for outcomes of medical diseases, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Communicate likely outcomes of medical diseases or traumatic conditions to patients or their representatives.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (7–15 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: Telling someone what their injury or illness is likely to mean is a conversation that has to be human.
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 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing patients' pain levels or sedation requirements
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: patients' pain levels, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Assess patients' pain levels or sedation requirements.” (O*NET 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: Judging pain and sedation needs relies on seeing and speaking with the patient at the bedside.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting primary patient assessments that include information from prior medical care
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: primary patient assessments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct primary patient assessments that include information from prior medical care.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 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: A first assessment involves looking at, touching and talking to the patient in person.
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 2/4.
Directing and coordinating activities of nurses
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: activities of nurses, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Direct and coordinate activities of nurses, assistants, specialists, residents, and other medical staff.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 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: Running a surgical team happens in the room, in real time, with people who know each other.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $335,550a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 32,880in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
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: patients' vital signs in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: evaluating patients' vital signs or laboratory data to determine emergency intervention needs and priority of treatment. What it cannot do is be answerable: emergency resuscitations 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: performing emergency resuscitations on patients is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 0% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 23% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 77% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 17 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. Evaluating patients' vital signs or laboratory data to determine emergency intervention needs and priority of treatment 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 patients' vital signs, 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 emergency resuscitations are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license 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 evaluating patients' vital signs or laboratory data to determine emergency intervention needs and priority of treatment. 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, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, 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 US occupations to emergency medicine physicians (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was family medicine physicians: only about 25% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 27.2% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 20/100 here, with only 0% of the task list in the top band, and “evaluate patients' vital signs or laboratory data to determine emergency intervention needs…” 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 830 US 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.
Family Medicine Physicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already monitor patients' conditions, and reevaluate treatments, as necessary, and their equivalent is to monitor patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments as necessary. Across both published task lists that is about 25% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 25% of that job's durable work is already yours, against the 35% I want to see before I will call something a route. It is a pay cut, in those words: $244,180 against your $335,550, 27.2% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already monitor patients' conditions, and reevaluate treatments, as necessary, and their equivalent is to monitor patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments as necessary. Across both published task lists that is about 24% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 24% 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: $292,910 against your $335,550, 12.7% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
General Internal Medicine Physicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already monitor patients' conditions, and reevaluate treatments, as necessary, and their equivalent is to monitor patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments as necessary. Across both published task lists that is about 23% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 23% 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: $256,560 against your $335,550, 23.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
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: 0% of its task weight, across 17 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 performing emergency resuscitations on patients 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 States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Specialist medical practitioners and consultants is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Specialist medical practitioners and consultants and Generalist medical 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.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
Why there is no community here
Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for emergency medicine physicians 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 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 Emergency Medicine Physicians?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 17 official task statements scored for Emergency Medicine Physicians (United States, SOC 29-1214), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 20 out of 100 (range 15–26, 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 “Emergency Medicine Physicians” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Analyze records, examination information, or test results to diagnose medical conditions” (47/100, partial); “Evaluate patients' vital signs or laboratory data to determine emergency intervention needs and priority of treatment” (47/100, partial); “Collect and record patient information, such as medical history or examination results, in electronic or handwritten medical records” (42/100, partial). 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 “Emergency Medicine Physicians” stay human?
- About 77% 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: “Stabilize patients in critical condition” (0/100, minimal); “Perform such medical procedures as emergent cricothyrotomy, endotracheal intubation, and emergency thoracotomy” (0/100, minimal); “Perform emergency resuscitations on patients” (0/100, 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 “Emergency Medicine Physicians” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 77% 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 Emergency Medicine Physicians 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 17 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
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 3 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
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
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.
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}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . 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.