Futureproof
Menu

US dataswitch to UK

Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants

answering telephones and directing calls to appropriate staff, greeting visitors and transmiting correspondence or medical records. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

This job is splitting in two: operating office equipment is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and greeting visitors, ascertain purpose of visit and directing them to appropriate staff is work it can't touch.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Which half fills your week decides your exposure. Moving toward the second half is a real, doable plan.

Your week, as this page understands it

Perform secretarial duties using specific knowledge of medical terminology and hospital, clinic, or laboratory procedures. Duties may include scheduling appointments, billing patients, and compiling and recording medical charts, reports, and correspondence. The job title says “medical secretaries” or “administrative assistants”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: greeting visitors, ascertain purpose of visit and directing them to appropriate staff. 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 medical secretaries and administrative assistants is not one task. It is 15 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is greeting visitors, ascertain purpose of visit and directing them to appropriate staff, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI
48%
changing shape
37%
staying human
15%

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

Whole-job exposure score 57 out of 100 (53–62 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 15 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 medical secretaries and administrative assistants is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

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

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

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.

Shifting to AI

7 tasks

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

  • Answering telephones and directing calls to appropriate staff

    This is reading one thing and writing another: telephones in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Answer telephones and direct calls to appropriate staff.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Automated and AI phone systems already answer and route calls reliably, with people picking up the unusual ones.

    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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Operating office equipment

    This is reading one thing and writing another: office equipment in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Operate office equipment, such as voice mail messaging systems, and use word processing, spreadsheet, or other software applications to prepare reports, invoices, financial statements, letters, case histories, or medical records.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 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: Producing letters, invoices and reports from templates and existing data is exactly what office software and AI do best.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

  • Receiving and routing messages or documents

    This is reading one thing and writing another: messages in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Receive and route messages or documents, such as laboratory results, to appropriate staff.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Lab results arrive electronically and the routing rules are clear, so this automates well with staff checking urgent items.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Completing insurance or other claim forms

    This is reading one thing and writing another: insurance in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Complete insurance or other claim forms.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Claim forms follow strict standard formats and pull from records already in the system, so software fills most.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

6 tasks

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

  • Scheduling and confirming patient diagnostic appointments

    The software now makes the first pass at patient diagnostic appointments, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Schedule and confirm patient diagnostic appointments, surgeries, or medical consultations.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Booking software with AI handles most scheduling and confirmations; tricky coordination between clinicians still needs a person.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Transmiting correspondence or medical records

    The software now makes the first pass at correspondence, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Transmit correspondence or medical records by mail, e-mail, or fax.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (45–53 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: Sending records electronically is easily automated; posting physical mail still needs someone to handle the envelopes.

    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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Performing bookkeeping duties, such as credits or collections

    The software now makes the first pass at duties, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Perform bookkeeping duties, such as credits or collections, preparing and sending financial statements or bills, and keeping financial records.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Billing and statements follow set rules inside accounting software; chasing an unpaid account sometimes needs a human call.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Scheduling tests or procedures

    The software now makes the first pass at tests, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Supplemental
    Source: “Schedule tests or procedures for patients, such as lab work or x-rays, based on physician orders.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Orders arrive electronically and booking rules are standard, so scheduling software handles most of this.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

2 tasks

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

  • Greeting visitors, ascertain purpose of visit and directing them to appropriate staff

    This work happens in the physical world: visitors, ascertain purpose of visit and directing them, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Greet visitors, ascertain purpose of visit, and direct them to appropriate staff.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Meeting people as they walk through the door and pointing them the right way needs someone at the desk.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Interviewing patients to complete documents

    This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Interview patients to complete documents, case histories, or forms, such as intake or insurance forms.” (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: Digital intake forms capture a lot, but sitting with a patient to get their history right often needs a person.

    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.

Show the other 5 tasks

  • Transcribing recorded messages or practitioners' diagnoses or recommendations into patients' medical records

    shifting to AI

    This is reading one thing and writing another: recorded messages in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 5 · Supplemental
    Source: “Transcribe recorded messages or practitioners' diagnoses or recommendations into patients' medical records.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 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: Speech-to-text tools now transcribe dictated notes accurately, with the clinician reviewing and signing the final record.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

  • Compiling and recording medical charts

    shifting to AI

    This is reading one thing and writing another: medical charts in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 5 · Supplemental
    Source: “Compile and record medical charts, reports, or correspondence, using typewriter or personal computer.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Charts and reports are assembled from data already held electronically, so software can compile them for quick checking.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Maintaining medical records, technical library or correspondence files

    shifting to AI

    This is reading one thing and writing another: medical records, technical library or correspondence files in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Maintain medical records, technical library, or correspondence files.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Medical records are now kept in electronic systems, so filing, indexing and upkeep are largely software work.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Performing various clerical or administrative functions

    changing shape

    The software now makes the first pass at various clerical or administrative functions, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Perform various clerical or administrative functions, such as ordering and maintaining an inventory of supplies.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Reordering can be triggered automatically from stock levels, though checking and putting away supplies happens on site.

    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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Preparing correspondence or assisting physicians or medical scientists with preparation of reports

    changing shape

    The software now makes the first pass at correspondence, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Supplemental
    Source: “Prepare correspondence or assist physicians or medical scientists with preparation of reports, speeches, articles, or conference proceedings.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Drafting letters, reports and talks from source material is strong AI work, with the doctor shaping the content.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay
$45,930a 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
961,610in 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: office equipment in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: operating office equipment and answering telephones and directing calls to appropriate staff. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where visitors, ascertain purpose of visit and directing them get done. 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

The exposed part of your job is the biggest part, and I am not going to dress that up: operating office equipment is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.

So, given all that: 48% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 37% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 15% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 15 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

What you have that the software does not is greeting visitors, ascertain purpose of visit and directing them to appropriate staff, plus the years of knowing when something looks wrong before you can say why. That is the raw material for everything below.

This week: one thing

Sit on the machine's side of the desk. Pick one real piece of office equipment you would normally do yourself, let whatever software you already have take the first pass at it, and then go through what it produced and write down every single thing it got wrong. One evening this week. Do not fix anything yet. Just catch it.

What you end up holding
a written list of the machine’s mistakes, in your handwriting
How long it takes
an evening, or an hour if you pick one job rather than one client

If you can’t run software on your employer’s or your clients’ data: Do the same hunt on paper. Take one printed piece of office equipment, work through it the way you always do, and mark every point where you made a call rather than followed a rule. Same evening, same list, nothing to log into and nobody to ask permission from. That list is the same artifact: it is the judgment written down.

Over the next 90 days

Change one sentence about what you do. Not on a CV. Out loud, to whoever pays you. From “my job is operating office equipment” to “I check what the software does and tell you what it means.” Your error list from this week is what makes that sentence true instead of a claim, so use it: show it once, to one person, inside the next ninety days. Same skills, priced as judgment rather than as typing.

Over the next 12 months

Walk toward the end of this job that answers for things, and get it recognised. Pick the one part of greeting visitors, ascertain purpose of visit and directing them to appropriate staff you are already best at, and spend the year making it formal: a qualification, a named responsibility, a specialism people ask for by name. Price it honestly: that is evenings, it is months rather than weeks, and the seats are competitive because everyone in your position is looking at the same door. 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 medical secretaries and administrative assistants (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was medical transcriptionists: only about 5% of its durable work is work you already do, it is under the same pressure this job is, it pays 12.0% less and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. Your own job splits about 48/52: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “schedule and confirm patient diagnostic appointments, surgeries, or medical consultations”, and let the exposed end go.

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.

  • Medical Transcriptionists

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already schedule and confirm patient diagnostic appointments, surgeries, or medical consultations, and their equivalent is to receive patients, schedule appointments, and maintain patient records. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.

    Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 79% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (71/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $40,410 against your $45,930, 12.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 41,550 of those jobs against 961,610 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 4% as many seats.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

  • Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already transmit correspondence or medical records by mail, e-mail, or fax, and their equivalent is to mail, fax, or arrange for delivery of legal correspondence to clients, witnesses, and…. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.

    Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 69% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (65/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. And it is a narrow door: about 156,280 of those jobs against 961,610 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 16% as many seats.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

  • Office Clerks, General

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already transmit correspondence or medical records by mail, e-mail, or fax, and their equivalent is to open, sort, and route incoming mail, answer correspondence, and prepare outgoing mail. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.

    Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

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

  • The headline number you read somewhere

    The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 48% of its task weight, across 15 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.

  • “It’s too late for me to become something else”

    You are not starting from zero, and the page shows why: greeting visitors, ascertain purpose of visit and directing them to appropriate staff is work the software cannot do and you already do it. The move above is a repricing of what you know, not a new career. Nobody who has just left college has that.

  • “I should learn to code”

    Almost certainly not. The value in your job is moving toward checking, deciding and answering for the output, not toward writing the software. A weekend of Python will not change your position; the error list from this week will.

  • 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 Medical secretaries 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 Medical secretaries and Health care practice managers. 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

Two honest options, and no deadline on either

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.

A nearby route

There's no Space built for medical secretaries yet.

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

What a Space actually is, in full

The closest match is Microsoft 365 Productivity Workers, a community for coordinators, team leads and administrators who live in Outlook, Teams, files and task lists. It overlaps with the Outlook, Teams and shared-mailbox half of your day, not the clinical scheduling, records or billing systems, which this Space does not touch. If that overlap isn't you, the free route below covers the same ground.

Try Microsoft 365 Productivity Workers free →

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

After the trial it is a paid community, and you get identical data either way. If the overlap above is not your job, the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own.

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

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

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

No Space for medical secretaries yet. Should there be one?

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

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

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

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

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants?
Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 15 official task statements scored for Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants (United States, SOC 43-6013), 48% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 57 out of 100 (range 53–62, band: partial). 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 “Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants” can AI already do?
The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Operate office equipment, such as voice mail messaging systems, and use word processing, spreadsheet, or other software applications to prepare reports, invo…” (88/100, very high); “Transcribe recorded messages or practitioners' diagnoses or recommendations into patients' medical records” (88/100, very high); “Compile and record medical charts, reports, or correspondence, using typewriter or personal computer” (81/100, very 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 “Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants” stay human?
About 15% 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: “Greet visitors, ascertain purpose of visit, and direct them to appropriate staff” (6/100, minimal); “Interview patients to complete documents, case histories, or forms, such as intake or insurance forms” (18/100, minimal); “Transmit correspondence or medical records by mail, e-mail, or fax” (49/100, partial). 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 “Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants” do about AI?
Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 48% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 15% 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 Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 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 15 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 2026-08-04.
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.

How we score a jobDownload this releaseLook up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

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

Plain text

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

BibTeX

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

Permalink

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

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . 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.