Will AI replace Nurse Practitioners?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 27 official task statements scored for Nurse Practitioners (United States, SOC 29-1171), 14% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 35 out of 100 (range 30–41, 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 “Nurse Practitioners” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain current knowledge of state legal regulations for nurse practitioner practice, including reimbursement of services” (83/100, very high); “Keep abreast of regulatory processes and payer systems, such as Medicare, Medicaid, managed care, and private sources” (75/100, high); “Maintain departmental policies and procedures in areas such as safety and infection control” (72/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Nurse Practitioners” stay human?

About 67% 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 routine or annual physical examinations” (0/100, minimal); “Perform primary care procedures such as suturing, splinting, administering immunizations, taking cultures, and debriding wounds” (0/100, minimal); “Diagnose or treat complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic, or emergency conditions in collaboration with other health care providers as necessary” (4/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Nurse Practitioners” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 14% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 67% 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 Nurse Practitioners calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 27 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.

US dataswitch to UK

Nurse Practitioners

maintaining complete and detailed records of patients' health care plans and prognoses, detecting and responding to adverse drug reactions and diagnosing or treating acute health care problems. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: diagnosing or treating complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic or emergency conditions in collaboration with other health care providers is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 14%
changing shape: 19%
staying human: 67%

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

Whole-job exposure score 35 out of 100 (30–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 27 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 nurse practitioners is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

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

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

What shifts is maintaining current knowledge of state legal regulations for nurse practitioner practice: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.

Your week, as this page understands it

Diagnose and treat acute, episodic, or chronic illness, independently or as part of a healthcare team. May focus on health promotion and disease prevention. May order, perform, or interpret diagnostic tests such as lab work and x rays. May prescribe medication. Must be registered nurses who have specialized graduate education. The job title says “nurse practitioners”. The real job is the part underneath: diagnosing or treating complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic or emergency conditions in collaboration with other health care providers. 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 nurse practitioners is not one task. It is 27 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is diagnosing or treating complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic or emergency conditions in collaboration with other health care providers, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 14%
changing shape: 19%
staying human: 67%

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

How we know this

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

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

Your job, task by task

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

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

Shifting to AI

4 tasks

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

Maintaining current knowledge of state legal regulations for nurse practitioner practice
This is reading one thing and writing another: current knowledge of state legal regulations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Maintain current knowledge of state legal regulations for nurse practitioner practice, including reimbursement of services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: State rules on nurse practitioner practice are published in full, so keeping a current summary of them is straightforward research.
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.
Maintaining departmental policies and procedures in areas
This is reading one thing and writing another: departmental policies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Maintain departmental policies and procedures in areas such as safety and infection control.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (65–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Safety and infection control procedures are published in detail, so drafting and updating local policy documents is routine writing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Keeping abreast of regulatory processes and payer systems
This is reading one thing and writing another: abreast of regulatory processes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Keep abreast of regulatory processes and payer systems, such as Medicare, Medicaid, managed care, and private sources.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Medicare, Medicaid and insurer rules are documented, so keeping an up-to-date summary of them is straightforward research.
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 3/4.
Providing patients or caregivers with assistance in locating health care resources
This is reading one thing and writing another: patients in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Provide patients or caregivers with assistance in locating health care resources.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Finding local services, funding and support for a patient is a search-and-match job 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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

5 tasks

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

Maintaining complete and detailed records of patients' health care plans and prognoses
The software now makes the first pass at complete, 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 · Core
Source: “Maintain complete and detailed records of patients' health care plans and prognoses.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Writing up care plans and prognoses from a visit is documentation that automated note-taking tools already draft well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending diagnostic or therapeutic interventions with attention
The software now makes the first pass at diagnostic, 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 · Core
Source: “Recommend diagnostic or therapeutic interventions with attention to safety, cost, invasiveness, simplicity, acceptability, adherence, and efficacy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Weighing up test or treatment options against cost and safety is documented reasoning, though a clinician signs the recommendation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Consulting with or referring patients to, appropriate specialists when conditions exceed the scope of practice or expertise
The software now makes the first pass at or referring patients, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Consult with, or refer patients to, appropriate specialists when conditions exceed the scope of practice or expertise.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Matching a condition to the right specialist follows documented referral criteria, though the referral comes from a qualified clinician.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

18 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.

Developing treatment plans, based on scientific rationale, standards of care and professional practice guidelines
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Develop treatment plans, based on scientific rationale, standards of care, and professional practice guidelines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (27–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Guidelines are published and easy to draft from, but the law requires a qualified clinician to set a patient's treatment.
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.
Providing patients with information needed to promote health
The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Provide patients with information needed to promote health, reduce risk factors, or prevent disease or disability.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 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 information is abundant and easy to produce, though patients act on it when a trusted 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 4/4.
Analyzing and interpreting patients' histories
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients' histories, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Analyze and interpret patients' histories, symptoms, physical findings, or diagnostic information to develop appropriate diagnoses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (19–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can suggest likely diagnoses from records, but the diagnosis must be made by a licensed clinician who examined the patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 17 tasks

Scheduling follow-up visits to monitor patients or evaluate health or illness care
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at follow-up visits, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Schedule follow-up visits to monitor patients or evaluate health or illness care.” (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: Deciding and booking a follow-up interval follows documented guidance and is routine scheduling 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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reading current literature
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at current literature, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Read current literature, talk with colleagues, or participate in professional organizations or conferences to keep abreast of developments in nursing.” (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: Keeping up with nursing research means reading published literature, which software summarises well, though conferences involve being there.
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.
Recommending interventions to modify behavior associated with health risks
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles interventions and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Recommend interventions to modify behavior associated with health risks.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Behaviour-change advice is well documented, but people change habits when a person they trust asks them to.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Educating patients about self-management of acute or chronic illnesses
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Educate patients about self-management of acute or chronic illnesses, tailoring instructions to patients' individual circumstances.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 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: Self-management instructions are well documented and easy to tailor, though patients act on them when a trusted clinician explains them.
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 4/4.
Prescribing medications based on efficacy
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for medications, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Prescribe medications based on efficacy, safety, and cost as legally authorized.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (29–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Choosing a medicine can be supported by published evidence, but only a licensed prescriber may legally issue the prescription.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Prescribing medication dosages, routes and frequencies, based on such patient characteristics as age and gender
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for medication dosages, routes and frequencies, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Prescribe medication dosages, routes, and frequencies, based on such patient characteristics as age and gender.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (29–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Dosing rules are well documented, but writing a prescription is legally an act only a licensed prescriber may perform.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Counseling patients about drug regimens and possible side effects or interactions with other substances
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Counsel patients about drug regimens and possible side effects or interactions with other substances, such as food supplements, over-the-counter (OTC) medications, or herbal remedies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Drug information is fully documented, but patients follow advice they hear from a clinician they trust in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Advocating for accessible health care that minimizes environmental health risks
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles accessible health care and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Advocate for accessible health care that minimizes environmental health risks.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Arguing for better access to care depends on persuading specific decision-makers who need to trust the advocate.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Detecting and responding to adverse drug reactions
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for adverse drug reactions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Detect and respond to adverse drug reactions, with special attention to vulnerable populations such as infants, children, pregnant and lactating women, or older adults.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software flags drug reactions well, but recognising and treating one in a real patient is a licensed clinician's job.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising or coordinating patient care or supporting staff activities
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patient care, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Supervise or coordinate patient care or support staff activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Rotas and task lists can be produced automatically, but supervising clinical staff carries professional responsibility and daily contact.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Ordering, performing or interpreting the results of diagnostic tests
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the results of diagnostic tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Order, perform, or interpret the results of diagnostic tests, such as complete blood counts (CBCs), electrocardiograms (EKGs), and radiographs (x-rays).” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Test results are increasingly read by software, but taking bloods, doing an ECG and ordering tests need a clinician present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Diagnosing or treating acute health care problems
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: acute health care problems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Diagnose or treat acute health care problems, such as illnesses, infections, or injuries.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (11–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Treating an infection or injury means examining the patient and making a treatment decision only a licensed clinician may make.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Treating or referring patients for primary care conditions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Treat or refer patients for primary care conditions, such as headaches, hypertension, urinary tract infections, upper respiratory infections, and dermatological conditions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (11–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Common primary care complaints follow documented pathways, but examining and treating the patient is a licensed clinician's work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Diagnosing or treating chronic health care problems
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: chronic health care problems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Diagnose or treat chronic health care problems, such as high blood pressure and diabetes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Managing diabetes or blood pressure mixes examination and licensed treatment decisions with a continuing patient relationship.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Diagnosing or treating complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic or emergency conditions in collaboration with other health care providers
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic or emergency conditions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Diagnose or treat complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic, or emergency conditions in collaboration with other health care providers as necessary.” (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: Unstable and emergency patients need hands, eyes and a licensed clinician at the bedside.
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.
Performing primary care procedures, suturing, splinting, administering immunizations, taking cultures and debriding wounds
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: primary care procedures, suturing, splinting, administering immunizations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform primary care procedures such as suturing, splinting, administering immunizations, taking cultures, and debriding wounds.” (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: Stitching a wound, splinting a limb or giving an injection is hands-on clinical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing routine or annual physical examinations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: routine or annual physical examinations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform routine or annual physical examinations.” (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 a clinician's hands and eyes 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.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $132,300a 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: 323,040in 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: current knowledge of state legal regulations in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining current knowledge of state legal regulations for nurse practitioner practice and maintaining departmental policies and procedures in areas. What it cannot do is be answerable: complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic or emergency conditions 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: diagnosing or treating complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic or emergency conditions in collaboration with other health care providers is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 14% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 19% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 67% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 27 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Maintaining current knowledge of state legal regulations for nurse practitioner practice 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 current knowledge of state legal regulations, 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 complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic or emergency conditions 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 maintaining complete and detailed records of patients' health care plans and prognoses. 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 nurse practitioners (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was acupuncturists: only about 8% of its durable work is work you already do, it pays 42.5% less and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 35/100 here, with only 14% of the task list in the top band, and “maintain complete and detailed records of patients' health care plans and prognoses” 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.

Acupuncturists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already maintain departmental policies and procedures in areas, and their equivalent is to maintain and follow standard quality, safety, environmental, and infection control policies and procedures. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $76,040 against your $132,300, 42.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 7,830 of those jobs against 323,040 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 2% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Physicians, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already supervise or coordinate patient care or support staff activities, and their equivalent is to direct, coordinate, or supervise the patient care activities of nursing or support staff. 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 $132,300 is 2.01× (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.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Neurologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already maintain complete and detailed records of patients' health care plans and prognoses, and their equivalent is to inform patients or families of neurological diagnoses and prognoses, or benefits, risks 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. And it is a narrow door: about 10,590 of those jobs against 323,040 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 3% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

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

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 14% of its task weight, across 27 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 diagnosing or treating complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic or emergency conditions in collaboration with other health care providers 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 Registered specialist nurses 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 Registered specialist nurses, Registered community nurses, Registered mental health nurses, Registered nurse practitioners, Registered children's nurses and Other registered nursing professionals. 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:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

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

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

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

Try The AI Authority free →

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

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

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

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

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

No Space for nurse practitioners yet. Should there be one?

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

What a Space actually is, in full

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

Your email

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

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

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

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Nurse Practitioners?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 27 official task statements scored for Nurse Practitioners (United States, SOC 29-1171), 14% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 35 out of 100 (range 30–41, 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 “Nurse Practitioners” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain current knowledge of state legal regulations for nurse practitioner practice, including reimbursement of services” (83/100, very high); “Keep abreast of regulatory processes and payer systems, such as Medicare, Medicaid, managed care, and private sources” (75/100, high); “Maintain departmental policies and procedures in areas such as safety and infection control” (72/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Nurse Practitioners” stay human?: About 67% 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 routine or annual physical examinations” (0/100, minimal); “Perform primary care procedures such as suturing, splinting, administering immunizations, taking cultures, and debriding wounds” (0/100, minimal); “Diagnose or treat complex, unstable, comorbid, episodic, or emergency conditions in collaboration with other health care providers as necessary” (4/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Nurse Practitioners” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 14% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 67% 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 Nurse Practitioners calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 27 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 job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

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

Plain text

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

BibTeX

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

Permalink

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

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