Will AI replace Surgical Technologists?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 16 official task statements scored for Surgical Technologists (United States, SOC 29-2055), 9% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 7 out of 100 (range 7–12, 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 “Surgical Technologists” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain files and records of surgical procedures” (81/100, very high); “Order surgical supplies” (75/100, high); “Observe patients' vital signs to assess physical condition” (9/100, minimal). 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 “Surgical Technologists” stay human?

About 91% 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: “Clean and restock operating room, gathering and placing equipment and supplies and arranging instruments according to instructions, such as a preference card” (0/100, minimal); “Prepare patients for surgery, including positioning patients on the operating table and covering them with sterile surgical drapes to prevent exposure” (0/100, minimal); “Maintain a proper sterile field during surgical procedures” (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 “Surgical Technologists” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 9% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 91% 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 Surgical Technologists 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 16 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

Surgical Technologists

maintaining a proper sterile field during surgical procedures, handing instruments and supplies to surgeons and surgeons' assistants and preparing care. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: preparing patients for surgery 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: 9%
changing shape: 0%
staying human: 91%

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

Whole-job exposure score 7 out of 100 (7–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 16 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 surgical technologists 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 ordering surgical supplies: the paper around the work, not the work.

Your week, as this page understands it

Assist in operations, under the supervision of surgeons, registered nurses, or other surgical personnel. May help set up operating room, prepare and transport patients for surgery, adjust lights and equipment, pass instruments and other supplies to surgeons and surgeons' assistants, hold retractors, cut sutures, and help count sponges, needles, supplies, and instruments. The job title says “surgical technologists”. The real job is the part underneath: preparing patients for surgery. 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 surgical technologists is not one task. It is 16 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is preparing patients for surgery, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 9%
changing shape: 0%
staying human: 91%

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.

One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
2 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 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.

Ordering surgical supplies
This is reading one thing and writing another: surgical supplies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Order surgical supplies.” (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: Ordering supplies against a case schedule is routine purchasing admin done at a screen.
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.
Maintaining files and records of surgical procedures
This is reading one thing and writing another: files in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Maintain files and records of surgical procedures.” (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: Keeping records of procedures is standard documentation that software handles well.
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

0 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.

Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.

Staying human

14 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.

Preparing patients for surgery
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Prepare patients for surgery, including positioning patients on the operating table and covering them with sterile surgical drapes to prevent exposure.” (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: Positioning and draping a patient is physical preparation of the person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Maintaining a proper sterile field during surgical procedures
This work happens in the physical world: a proper sterile field during surgical procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Maintain a proper sterile field during surgical 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Keeping the sterile field intact during an operation is physical vigilance at the table.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Operating, assembling, adjusting or monitoring sterilizers, lights, suction machines or diagnostic equipment to ensure proper operation
This work happens in the physical world: sterilizers, lights, suction machines or diagnostic equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Operate, assemble, adjust, or monitor sterilizers, lights, suction machines, or diagnostic equipment to ensure proper operation.” (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: Assembling and adjusting sterilizers and suction machines is hands-on equipment work.
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.
Providing technical assistance
This work happens in the physical world: technical assistance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Provide technical assistance to surgeons, surgical nurses, or anesthesiologists.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Assisting surgeons during an operation is hands-on work at the table.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing care for and disposing of tissue specimens taken for laboratory analysis
This work happens in the physical world: care, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Prepare, care for, and dispose of tissue specimens taken for laboratory analysis.” (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: Handling and preparing tissue specimens is physical laboratory work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Scrubbing arms and hands and assisting the surgical team to scrub and put on gloves
This work happens in the physical world: arms, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Scrub arms and hands and assist the surgical team to scrub and put on gloves, masks, and surgical clothing.” (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: Scrubbing and gowning the surgical team is direct physical preparation.
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 2/4.
Handing instruments and supplies to surgeons and surgeons' assistants
This work happens in the physical world: instruments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Hand instruments and supplies to surgeons and surgeons' assistants, hold retractors and cut sutures, and perform other tasks as directed by surgeon during operation.” (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: Passing instruments and holding retractors is physical work during surgery.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Cleaning and restocking operating room
This work happens in the physical world: room, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Clean and restock operating room, gathering and placing equipment and supplies and arranging instruments according to instructions, such as a preference card.” (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: Cleaning, restocking and laying out an operating room is physical work in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 6 tasks

Observing patients' vital signs to assess physical condition
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patients' vital signs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Observe patients' vital signs to assess physical condition.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Monitors display the numbers, but assessing a patient means being at the bedside.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Counting sponges, needles and instruments before and after operation
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: sponges, needles and instruments before and after operation, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Count sponges, needles, and instruments before and after operation.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Counting sponges and instruments means handling and seeing them in the operating room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Washing and sterilizing equipment, using germicides and sterilizers
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Wash and sterilize equipment, using germicides and sterilizers.” (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: Washing and sterilizing instruments is physical equipment handling.
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.
Preparing dressings or bandages and applying or assisting with their application following surgery
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: dressings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Prepare dressings or bandages and apply or assist with their application following surgery.” (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: Preparing and applying dressings is physical patient care.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Monitoring and continually assessing operating room conditions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: assessing operating room conditions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Monitor and continually assess operating room conditions, including patient and surgical team needs.” (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: Continuously reading the room and the team during surgery depends on being in it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Maintaining supply of fluids, such as plasma, saline, blood or glucose, for use during operations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: fluids, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Maintain supply of fluids, such as plasma, saline, blood, or glucose, for use during operations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Keeping fluids and blood available during surgery involves fetching and handling them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $64,650a 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: 117,460in 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: surgical supplies in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: ordering surgical supplies and maintaining files and records of surgical procedures. What it cannot do is be answerable: patients need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: preparing patients for surgery 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, 0% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 91% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 16 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. Ordering surgical supplies 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 surgical supplies, 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 a proper sterile field during surgical procedures 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 preparing patients for surgery. 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 surgical technologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was surgical assistants: only about 13% of its durable work is work you already do and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 7/100 here, with only 9% of the task list in the top band, and “prepare patients for surgery” 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.

Surgical Assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already prepare patients for surgery, and their equivalent is to cover patients with surgical drapes to create and maintain a sterile operative field. Across both published task lists that is about 13% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 13% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. And it is a narrow door: about 22,270 of those jobs against 117,460 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 19% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Pediatric Surgeons
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide technical assistance to surgeons, surgical nurses, or anesthesiologists, and their equivalent is to provide consultation and surgical assistance to other physicians and surgeons. Across both published task lists that is about 11% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 11% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $559,030 against your $64,650 is 8.65× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 11% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route. And it is a narrow door: about 1,190 of those jobs against 117,460 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 1% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Orthopedic Surgeons, Except Pediatric
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide technical assistance to surgeons, surgical nurses, or anesthesiologists, and their equivalent is to provide consultation and surgical assistance to other physicians and surgeons. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $358,550 against your $64,650 is 5.55× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 10% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route. And it is a narrow door: about 14,100 of those jobs against 117,460 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 12% 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: 9% of its task weight, across 16 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 preparing patients for surgery 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.

If you run a team doing this job

If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are ordering surgical supplies, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Health associate professionals n.e.c. 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

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Health associate professionals n.e.c.. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

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 surgical technologists, 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.

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 surgical technologists. 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 surgical technologists 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 surgical technologists 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 surgical technologists 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 surgical technologists 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 Surgical Technologists?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 16 official task statements scored for Surgical Technologists (United States, SOC 29-2055), 9% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 7 out of 100 (range 7–12, 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 “Surgical Technologists” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain files and records of surgical procedures” (81/100, very high); “Order surgical supplies” (75/100, high); “Observe patients' vital signs to assess physical condition” (9/100, minimal). 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 “Surgical Technologists” stay human?: About 91% 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: “Clean and restock operating room, gathering and placing equipment and supplies and arranging instruments according to instructions, such as a preference card” (0/100, minimal); “Prepare patients for surgery, including positioning patients on the operating table and covering them with sterile surgical drapes to prevent exposure” (0/100, minimal); “Maintain a proper sterile field during surgical procedures” (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 “Surgical Technologists” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 9% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 91% 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 Surgical Technologists 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 16 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

About the data on this page

One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
2 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.