US dataswitch to UK
Phlebotomists
disposing of contaminated sharps, processing blood or other fluid samples for further analysis by other medical professionals and providing sample analysis results to physicians to assist diagnosis. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: disposing of contaminated sharps, in accordance with applicable laws, standards and policies is work software can't reach.
What shifts is entering patient, specimen, insurance or billing information into computer: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.
Your week, as this page understands it
Draw blood for tests, transfusions, donations, or research. May explain the procedure to patients and assist in the recovery of patients with adverse reactions. The job title says “phlebotomists”. The real job is the part underneath: disposing of contaminated sharps, in accordance with applicable laws, standards and policies. 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 phlebotomists is not one task. It is 23 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is disposing of contaminated sharps, in accordance with applicable laws, standards and policies, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 9%
- changing shape
- 4%
- staying human
- 86%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 13 out of 100 (11–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 23 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 phlebotomists 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.
- 6 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
2 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.
Entering patient, specimen, insurance or billing information into computer
This is reading one thing and writing another: patient, specimen, insurance or billing information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Enter patient, specimen, insurance, or billing information into computer.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 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: Typing patient, specimen and billing details into a system is standard data entry.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Documenting route of specimens from collection to laboratory analysis and diagnosis
This is reading one thing and writing another: route of specimens in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Document route of specimens from collection to laboratory analysis and diagnosis.” (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: Recording where a specimen travelled is a tracking log that barcode systems already keep.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
1 taskTasks 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.
Providing sample analysis results to physicians to assist diagnosis
The software now makes the first pass at sample analysis results, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide sample analysis results to physicians to assist diagnosis.” (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: Sending results to a doctor is routine data transfer, but reporting rules expect a qualified person involved.
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
20 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.
Disposing of contaminated sharps, in accordance with applicable laws, standards and policies
This work happens in the physical world: contaminated sharps, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Dispose of contaminated sharps, in accordance with applicable laws, standards, and policies.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Putting used needles into a sharps container is a physical act at the point of care.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Organizing or cleaning blood-drawing trays
This work happens in the physical world: trays, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Organize or clean blood-drawing trays, ensuring that all instruments are sterile and all needles, syringes, or related items are of first-time use.” (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.
The rating behind it: Cleaning trays and laying out sterile needles and tubes is done by hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Matching laboratory requisition forms to specimen tubes
This work happens in the physical world: laboratory requisition forms, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Match laboratory requisition forms to specimen tubes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Barcodes already match samples to requests, but the tubes and forms are physically in your hands.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Drawing blood from veins by vacuum tube
This work happens in the physical world: blood, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Draw blood from veins by vacuum tube, syringe, or butterfly venipuncture methods.” (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.
The rating behind it: Finding a vein and drawing blood is skilled hand work with a patient in front of you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Disposing of blood or other biohazard fluids or tissue
This work happens in the physical world: blood, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Dispose of blood or other biohazard fluids or tissue, in accordance with applicable laws, standards, or policies.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Disposing of blood and tissue waste safely means physically bagging, sealing and moving it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collecting specimens at specific time intervals
This work happens in the physical world: specimens, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Collect specimens at specific time intervals for tests, such as those assessing therapeutic drug levels.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Taking samples at set times still means physically collecting them from the patient on each occasion.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting standards tests, such as blood alcohol, blood culture, oral glucose tolerance, glucose screening, blood smears or peak and trough drug levels tests
This work happens in the physical world: standards tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct standards tests, such as blood alcohol, blood culture, oral glucose tolerance, glucose screening, blood smears, or peak and trough drug levels tests.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running blood alcohol, culture or glucose tests is bench work with the sample in hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 13 tasks
Determining donor suitability, according to interview results, vital signs and medical history
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: donor suitability, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Determine donor suitability, according to interview results, vital signs, and medical history.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 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: Screening rules can be applied automatically, but confirming vitals and history happens with the donor present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Explaining fluid or tissue collection procedures to patients
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fluid, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Explain fluid or tissue collection procedures to patients.” (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; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The explanation is easy to write, but nervous patients want a person beside them saying it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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.
Training other medical personnel in phlebotomy or laboratory techniques
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: other medical personnel, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train other medical personnel in phlebotomy or laboratory techniques.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: 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: Teaching someone to draw blood means guiding their hands, not just their reading.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collecting fluid or tissue samples
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fluid, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collect fluid or tissue samples, using appropriate collection procedures.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Collecting fluid or tissue samples correctly is a hands-on clinical procedure.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Drawing blood from arteries, using arterial collection techniques
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: blood, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Draw blood from arteries, using arterial collection techniques.” (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.
The rating behind it: Arterial draws are demanding hand skills performed directly 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 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Drawing blood from capillaries by dermal puncture
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: blood, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Draw blood from capillaries by dermal puncture, such as heel or finger stick methods.” (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.
The rating behind it: A heel or finger prick is a hands-on procedure with the patient present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Administering subcutaneous or intramuscular injects
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: subcutaneous, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · SupplementalSource: “Administer subcutaneous or intramuscular injects, in accordance with licensing restrictions.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Giving an injection is a physical clinical act with the patient present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Calibrating or maintaining machines, such as those used for plasma collection
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: machines, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Calibrate or maintain machines, such as those used for plasma collection.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Calibrating and maintaining collection machines is hands-on technical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting hemoglobin tests to ensure donor iron levels are normal
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: hemoglobin tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct hemoglobin tests to ensure donor iron levels are normal.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running a hemoglobin check on a donor means taking and testing their sample there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring blood or plasma donors during and after procedures to ensure health
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: blood, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Monitor blood or plasma donors during and after procedures to ensure health, safety, and comfort.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Watching a donor for faintness and keeping them comfortable means staying in the room with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Processing blood or other fluid samples for further analysis by other medical professionals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: blood, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Process blood or other fluid samples for further analysis by other medical professionals.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Spinning and preparing fluid samples for the laboratory means handling tubes and machines by hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Serving refreshments to donors to ensure absorption of sugar into their systems
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: refreshments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Serve refreshments to donors to ensure absorption of sugar into their systems.” (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.
The rating behind it: Handing a donor juice and cookies afterwards is a physical act of care.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Transporting specimens or fluid samples from collection sites to laboratories
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: specimens, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Transport specimens or fluid samples from collection sites to laboratories.” (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.
The rating behind it: Carrying specimens from collection point to laboratory is physical transport.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $45,230a 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
- 143,540in 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: patient, specimen, insurance or billing information in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: entering patient, specimen, insurance or billing information into computer and documenting route of specimens from collection to laboratory analysis and diagnosis. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where contaminated sharps 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
Start with what does not change: disposing of contaminated sharps, in accordance with applicable laws, standards and policies is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 9% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 4% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 86% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 23 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. Entering patient, specimen, insurance or billing information into computer 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 patient, specimen, insurance or billing information, 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 contaminated sharps 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 providing sample analysis results to physicians to assist diagnosis. 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 phlebotomists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was medical assistants: only about 9% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 13/100 here, with only 9% of the task list in the top band, and “dispose of contaminated sharps, in accordance with applicable laws, standards, and policies” 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.
Medical Assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already dispose of contaminated sharps, in accordance with applicable laws, standards, and policies, and their equivalent is to clean and sterilize instruments and dispose of contaminated supplies. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Surgical Technologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already document route of specimens from collection to laboratory analysis and diagnosis, and their equivalent is to prepare, care for, and dispose of tissue specimens taken for laboratory analysis. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Workers, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already transport specimens or fluid samples from collection sites to laboratories, and their equivalent is to collect specimens for use in laboratory tests. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 35,010 of those jobs against 143,540 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 24% as many seats.
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: 9% of its task weight, across 23 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 disposing of contaminated sharps, in accordance with applicable laws, standards and policies 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 Nursing auxiliaries and assistants 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 Nursing auxiliaries and assistants and Dental nurses. 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 phlebotomists, 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 9% 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 phlebotomists. 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 phlebotomists 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 Phlebotomists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 23 official task statements scored for Phlebotomists (United States, SOC 31-9097), 9% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 13 out of 100 (range 11–18, band: minimal). 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 “Phlebotomists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Enter patient, specimen, insurance, or billing information into computer” (93/100, very high); “Document route of specimens from collection to laboratory analysis and diagnosis” (81/100, very high); “Provide sample analysis results to physicians to assist diagnosis” (48/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Phlebotomists” stay human?
- About 86% 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: “Transport specimens or fluid samples from collection sites to laboratories” (0/100, minimal); “Serve refreshments to donors to ensure absorption of sugar into their systems” (0/100, minimal); “Process blood or other fluid samples for further analysis by other medical professionals” (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 “Phlebotomists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 9% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 86% 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 Phlebotomists 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 23 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.
- 6 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.
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.