US dataswitch to UK
Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners, All Other
documenting patients' histories, including identifying data, chief complaints, illnesses, diagnosing health conditions and interpreting clinical or diagnostic test results. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: examining patients with problems related to ocular motility is work software can't reach.
What shifts is monitoring updates from public health agencies to keep abreast of health trends: the paper around the work, not the work.
Your week, as this page understands it
All healthcare diagnosing or treating practitioners not listed separately. The job title says “healthcare diagnosing or treating practitioners” or “all other”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: examining patients with problems related to ocular motility. 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 healthcare diagnosing or treating practitioners, all other is not one task. It is 36 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is examining patients with problems related to ocular motility, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 10%
- changing shape
- 12%
- staying human
- 78%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 25 out of 100 (20–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 36 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 healthcare diagnosing or treating practitioners, all other 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.
- 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 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.
Obtaining medical records from previous physicians or other health care providers for the purpose of patient evaluation
This is reading one thing and writing another: medical records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Obtain medical records from previous physicians or other health care providers for the purpose of patient evaluation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 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: Requesting and chasing records from previous providers is administrative work already largely automated.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring updates from public health agencies to keep abreast of health trends
This is reading one thing and writing another: updates in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor updates from public health agencies to keep abreast of health trends.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 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: Following public health bulletins and spotting trends is pure reading and summarizing, which software does quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing diagnostic or treatment reports for other medical practitioners or therapists
This is reading one thing and writing another: diagnostic in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare diagnostic or treatment reports for other medical practitioners or therapists.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (62–76 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Writing up diagnostic and treatment reports for other clinicians is standard document work software drafts reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Reporting patterns of patients' health conditions
This is reading one thing and writing another: patterns of patients' health conditions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Report patterns of patients' health conditions, such as disease status and births, to public health agencies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (62–76 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Notifying agencies about disease and birth records is form-filling from the record, though the clinician stays responsible.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
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.
Documenting patients' histories, including identifying data, chief complaints, illnesses, previous medical or family histories or psychosocial characteristics
The software now makes the first pass at patients' histories, including identifying data, chief complaints, illnesses, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Document patients' histories, including identifying data, chief complaints, illnesses, previous medical or family histories, or psychosocial characteristics.” (O*NET 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: Writing up patient histories from a consultation is note-taking software now does well, with the practitioner confirming it.
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.
Interpreting clinical or diagnostic test results
The software now makes the first pass at clinical, 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: “Interpret clinical or diagnostic test results.” (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 test results is something software does well, though the clinical interpretation must carry a licensed name.
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.
Ordering diagnostic imaging procedures, radiographs, x-rays), ultrasounds, mammograms and bone densitometry tests or referring patients to other health professionals for these procedures
The software now makes the first pass at diagnostic imaging procedures, radiographs, x-rays), ultrasounds, 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: “Order diagnostic imaging procedures such as radiographs (x-rays), ultrasounds, mammograms, and bone densitometry tests, or refer patients to other health professionals for these procedures.” (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: Deciding which scans to order follows documented guidelines, but only a licensed clinician can place the order.
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
28 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.
Providing instructions to patients or family members concerning diagnoses or treatment plans
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for instructions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide instructions to patients or family members concerning diagnoses or treatment plans.” (O*NET 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: Explanations can be drafted well, but patients and families take them in when a clinician talks them through.
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.
Evaluating, diagnosing
This work happens in the physical world: disorders of the visual system, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Evaluate, diagnose, or treat disorders of the visual system with an emphasis on binocular vision or abnormal eye movements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (0–12 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 and treating eye movement disorders happens in person and is a licensed clinician's responsibility.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Examining patients with problems related to ocular motility
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Examine patients with problems related to ocular motility, binocular vision, amblyopia, or strabismus.” (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: Examining eye movement and vision problems requires the patient 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 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 26 tasks
Presenting or publishing scientific papers
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at scientific papers, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Present or publish scientific papers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 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: Writing scientific papers is document work software drafts well, though presenting them is done in person.
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 4/4.
Consulting with other health professionals to provide optimal patient care
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for other health professionals, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Consult with other health professionals to provide optimal patient care, referring patients to traditional health care professionals as necessary.” (O*NET 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: Case discussion and referral letters are drafted easily, though the clinical judgment stays with credentialed professionals.
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.
Referring patients to ophthalmic surgeons or other physicians
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Refer patients to ophthalmic surgeons or other physicians.” (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: Referral decisions follow documented criteria, though a registered professional must make the call.
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.
Interviewing patients to document symptoms and health histories
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Interview patients to document symptoms and health histories.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Structured intake questions can be handled by software, but patients open up more talking to a clinician.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Educating patients about health care management
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Educate patients about health care management.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Health advice is well documented and easily drafted, but patients act on it because a clinician explains it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in clinical research projects
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put clinical research projects well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Participate in clinical research projects.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Taking part in clinical research involves work with patients and colleagues as well as documents.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Prescribing synthetic drugs under the supervision of medical doctors or within the allowances of regulatory bodies
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for synthetic drugs under the supervision of medical doctors, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Prescribe synthetic drugs under the supervision of medical doctors or within the allowances of regulatory bodies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 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: Prescribing follows documented guidance, but the law puts the prescription in a licensed practitioner's hands.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing nonsurgical treatment plans for patients with conditions
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for nonsurgical treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Develop nonsurgical treatment plans for patients with conditions such as strabismus, nystagmus, and other visual disorders.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 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: Treatment plans follow documented protocols, but the plan must come from a licensed clinician who examined the patient.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising patients about therapeutic exercise and nutritional medicine regimens
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Advise patients about therapeutic exercise and nutritional medicine regimens.” (O*NET 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: Exercise and nutrition plans are easy to draft, though patients follow them because a practitioner discusses them personally.
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.
Diagnosing health conditions, based on patients' symptoms and health histories
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for health conditions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Diagnose health conditions, based on patients' symptoms and health histories, laboratory and diagnostic radiology test results, or other physiological measurements, such as electrocardiograms and electroencephalographs.” (O*NET 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 suggest likely diagnoses from symptoms and test results, but the diagnosis must be a licensed clinician's.
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.
Collaborating with ophthalmologists, optometrists or other specialists in the diagnosis, treatment or management of conditions, glaucoma, cataracts and retinal diseases
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for ophthalmologists, optometrists or other specialists, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with ophthalmologists, optometrists, or other specialists in the diagnosis, treatment, or management of conditions such as glaucoma, cataracts, and retinal diseases.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Joint management of complex eye conditions is a professional conversation between specialists.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining professional development through activities
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put professional development well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain professional development through activities such as postgraduate education, continuing education, preceptorships, and residency programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over.
The rating behind it: Keeping your own training and qualifications up to date is something only the practitioner can do.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing training related to clinical methods or orthoptics
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: related, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide training related to clinical methods or orthoptics to students, resident physicians, or other health professionals.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Clinical teaching happens beside the trainee, though the underlying material is well documented.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Administering, dispensing or prescribing natural medicines, such as food or botanical extracts, herbs, dietary supplements, vitamins, nutraceuticals and amino acids
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: natural medicines, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Administer, dispense, or prescribe natural medicines, such as food or botanical extracts, herbs, dietary supplements, vitamins, nutraceuticals, and amino acids.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 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 out or prescribing remedies is a licensed act carried out in person.
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 2/4.
Providing nonsurgical interventions, including corrective lenses, patches, drops, fusion exercises or stereograms
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: nonsurgical interventions, including corrective lenses, patches, drops, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide nonsurgical interventions, including corrective lenses, patches, drops, fusion exercises, or stereograms, to treat conditions such as strabismus, heterophoria, and convergence insufficiency.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: 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: Fitting lenses, patches and exercises is hands-on treatment by a qualified clinician.
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.
Developing or using special test and communication techniques to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of children or patients with disabilities
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: special test, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Develop or use special test and communication techniques to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of children or patients with disabilities.” (O*NET 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: 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: Getting reliable answers from a child or a patient with disabilities depends on rapport built in the room.
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.
Performing mobilizations and high-velocity adjustments to joints or soft tissues
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: mobilizations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Perform mobilizations and high-velocity adjustments to joints or soft tissues, using principles of massage, stretching, or resistance.” (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: Joint and soft-tissue manipulation is hands-on physical treatment.
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.
Administering treatments or therapies, such as homeopathy, hydrotherapy, Oriental or Ayurvedic medicine, electrotherapy and diathermy
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: treatments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Administer treatments or therapies, such as homeopathy, hydrotherapy, Oriental or Ayurvedic medicine, electrotherapy, and diathermy, using physical agents including air, heat, cold, water, sound, or ultraviolet light to catalyze the body to heal itself.” (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: Hands-on therapies like hydrotherapy and manipulation are physical treatments.
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.
Conducting physical examinations and physiological function tests for diagnostic purposes
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: physical examinations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct physical examinations and physiological function tests for diagnostic purposes.” (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: A physical examination means putting hands on a 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 venipuncture or skin pricking to collect blood samples
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: venipuncture, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Perform venipuncture or skin pricking to collect blood samples.” (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: Taking a blood sample requires hands on 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.
Treating minor cuts, abrasions or contusions
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: minor cuts, abrasions or contusions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Treat minor cuts, abrasions, or contusions.” (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: Dressing cuts and grazes is hands-on treatment.
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 minor surgical procedures, such as removing warts, moles or cysts
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: minor surgical procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Perform minor surgical procedures, such as removing warts, moles, or cysts, sampling tissues for skin cancer or lipomas, and applying or removing sutures.” (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: Minor surgery is physical work on a 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.
Conducting periodic public health maintenance activities
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: periodic public health maintenance activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct periodic public health maintenance activities such as immunizations and screenings for diseases and disease risk factors.” (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: Giving immunizations and screenings means physically treating people.
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.
Assisting ophthalmologists in diagnostic ophthalmic procedures
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: ophthalmologists, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Assist ophthalmologists in diagnostic ophthalmic procedures, such as ultrasonography, fundus photography, and tonometry.” (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: Assisting with eye procedures means being at the patient's side.
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 diagnostic tests or measurements
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: diagnostic tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Perform diagnostic tests or measurements, such as motor testing, visual acuity testing, lensometry, retinoscopy, and color vision testing.” (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: Vision measurements are taken with instruments on 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 vision screening of children in schools or community health centers
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: vision screening of children, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Perform vision screening of children in schools or community health centers.” (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: Screening children's vision means testing them in person.
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.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $115,210a 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
- 28,630in 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: medical records in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: monitoring updates from public health agencies to keep abreast of health trends and obtaining medical records from previous physicians or other health care providers for the purpose of patient evaluation. What it cannot do is be answerable: patients 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: examining patients with problems related to ocular motility is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 10% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 12% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 78% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 36 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. Monitoring updates from public health agencies to keep abreast of health trends 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 medical records, 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 disorders of the visual system 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 documenting patients' histories, including identifying data, chief complaints, illnesses, previous medical or family histories or psychosocial characteristics. 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 healthcare diagnosing or treating practitioners, all other (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was ophthalmologists, except pediatric: only about 7% of its durable work is work you already do and the 2.6× pay gap is the market pricing a barrier. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 25/100 here, with only 10% of the task list in the top band, and “document patients' histories” 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.
Ophthalmologists, Except Pediatric
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interpret clinical or diagnostic test results, and their equivalent is to perform, order, or interpret the results of diagnostic or clinical tests. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $300,080 against your $115,210 is 2.60× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 7% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
Neurologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interview patients to document symptoms and health histories, and their equivalent is to interview patients to obtain information. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $248,560 against your $115,210 is 2.16× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 6% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
Physicians, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already conduct physical examinations and physiological function tests for diagnostic purposes, and their equivalent is to conduct physical examinations of patients. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $265,930 against your $115,210 is 2.31× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 6% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
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: 10% of its task weight, across 36 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 examining patients with problems related to ocular motility 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 Occupational therapists 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 Occupational therapists, Podiatrists and Therapy professionals n.e.c.. 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
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for healthcare diagnosing or treating practitioners / all other, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 10% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
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 healthcare diagnosing or treating practitioners / all other. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for healthcare diagnosing or treating practitioners / all other 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 Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners, All Other?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 36 official task statements scored for Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners, All Other (United States, SOC 29-1299), 10% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 25 out of 100 (range 20–30, 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 “Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners, All Other” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Monitor updates from public health agencies to keep abreast of health trends” (83/100, very high); “Report patterns of patients' health conditions, such as disease status and births, to public health agencies” (69/100, high); “Obtain medical records from previous physicians or other health care providers for the purpose of patient evaluation” (69/100, 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 “Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners, All Other” stay human?
- About 78% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Perform vision screening of children in schools or community health centers” (0/100, minimal); “Examine patients with problems related to ocular motility, binocular vision, amblyopia, or strabismus” (0/100, minimal); “Perform diagnostic tests or measurements, such as motor testing, visual acuity testing, lensometry, retinoscopy, and color vision testing” (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 “Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners, All Other” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 10% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 78% 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 Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners, All Other 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 36 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.
- 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
- 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.