How outdoorsie is Melbourne/Brisbane REALLY for a family?
#67
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Hill overlooking the SE Melbourne suburbs
Posts: 16,622
Re: How outdoorsie is Melbourne/Brisbane REALLY for a family?
Yeah, that's me, vulgar as muck.
FYI Computer programs tend to with the american spelling ....
Someone needs to get used to virtualising those programs on windows of one desktop ....
Reality is that 50% of today's jobs will disappear (and I'd say that many doctor type jobs will be amongst them) and those that remain will often be employing, or overseeing, AIs doing much of the work..
FYI Computer programs tend to with the american spelling ....
Someone needs to get used to virtualising those programs on windows of one desktop ....
Reality is that 50% of today's jobs will disappear (and I'd say that many doctor type jobs will be amongst them) and those that remain will often be employing, or overseeing, AIs doing much of the work..
To do so, you would need a grandiose points system and of course big data but many mistakes would be made : would you automate the appeals process?
My life coexists wth the sciences and the arts. I've noticed there are some very talented deep learners and scientists in the Arts who have been in the same industries that have been around for 50 years. But talk to a less rounded tech head or a classical geek about the arts and often they will look as if you are talking double-Dutch. It's as if all they know is Netflix, movies and games which is where they make sense of everything but it is not deep experience either. Being well rounded will continue to be an asset...
Last edited by BadgeIsBack; Jun 22nd 2017 at 7:44 am.
#68
Re: How outdoorsie is Melbourne/Brisbane REALLY for a family?
You talk about deep learning : that has always existed for lawyers, doctors and computer programmers. Automation cannot diagnose everything or interpret case law.
To do so, you would need a grandiose points system and of course big data but many mistakes would be made : would you automate the appeals process?
To do so, you would need a grandiose points system and of course big data but many mistakes would be made : would you automate the appeals process?
As far as law is concerned, the expectation is that a significant percentage will get automated, partly because the rote stuff is so predictable, and partly because what the law is based on - defined cases and rules. You may have heard of the 'robot lawyer' that has helped overturn 200,000 parking tickets.
Doctors is another area where it is expected that large numbers of particularly GPs will lose jobs. Again, the case data is already available, as is structured knowledge, and already AIs are beating doctors in diagnosis.
And finally programmers, well there are lots of cloud based services coming out already to add AI smarts, just plug them together. And there are systems coming out to do the plugging together too.
My life coexists wth the sciences and the arts. I've noticed there are some very talented deep learners and scientists in the Arts who have been in the same industries that have been around for 50 years. But talk to a less rounded tech head or a classical geek about the arts and often they will look as if you are talking double-Dutch. It's as if all they know is Netflix, movies and games which is where they make sense of everything but it is not deep experience either. Being well rounded will continue to be an asset...
And if you look at where the world is getting better, rather than worse, it's generally those same people that are doing it.
#69
Re: How outdoorsie is Melbourne/Brisbane REALLY for a family?
Doctors is another area where it is expected that large numbers of particularly GPs will lose jobs. Again, the case data is already available, as is structured knowledge, and already
AIs are beating doctors in diagnosis.
AIs are beating doctors in diagnosis.
I certainly think computers are in excellent aid to stratify risk. I was interested as to why you felt that GPs particularly would be at risk of losing their jobs. For example, that you gave was more cardiological rather than general practice. I am certainly not worried about my job. I spent my days, even without computers, trying to work out the motivation as to why some patients have come in to see me-it is quite often nothing to do with any medical condition!
Our work involves a huge amount of communication skills, I'm not blowing my own trumpet, and certainly use technology to help guide me. AI. I feel certainly currently is less able to either take a half decent history, make diagnosis, if necessary reassure the patient sufficiently.
In the future, progress, may be made that certainly I have no worries at the moment about job loss
#70
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Hill overlooking the SE Melbourne suburbs
Posts: 16,622
Re: How outdoorsie is Melbourne/Brisbane REALLY for a family?
OK, first off 'deep learning' is the application of deep neural network technologies to effectively 'pattern match' inputs with outputs. As I think I've mentioned before, it can do this at, or above, the level of a human. Couple that with other techniques and it can take over the jobs of a significant number of people. Basically if you can do a 10 week training course to do a job, the AI can learn the same rote stuff. Even the higher levels can often be automated.
As far as law is concerned, the expectation is that a significant percentage will get automated, partly because the rote stuff is so predictable, and partly because what the law is based on - defined cases and rules. You may have heard of the 'robot lawyer' that has helped overturn 200,000 parking tickets.
Doctors is another area where it is expected that large numbers of particularly GPs will lose jobs. Again, the case data is already available, as is structured knowledge, and already AIs are beating doctors in diagnosis.
And finally programmers, well there are lots of cloud based services coming out already to add AI smarts, just plug them together. And there are systems coming out to do the plugging together too.
Whilst 'well rounded' has a value - so does the sheer speed and ability to employ new ideas of those you decry. They break through "that's the way its done" and dream (and deliver) big. Throw in some face recognition, speech recognition, a spot of semantic analysis, and they have some working in an afternoon.
And if you look at where the world is getting better, rather than worse, it's generally those same people that are doing it.
As far as law is concerned, the expectation is that a significant percentage will get automated, partly because the rote stuff is so predictable, and partly because what the law is based on - defined cases and rules. You may have heard of the 'robot lawyer' that has helped overturn 200,000 parking tickets.
Doctors is another area where it is expected that large numbers of particularly GPs will lose jobs. Again, the case data is already available, as is structured knowledge, and already AIs are beating doctors in diagnosis.
And finally programmers, well there are lots of cloud based services coming out already to add AI smarts, just plug them together. And there are systems coming out to do the plugging together too.
Whilst 'well rounded' has a value - so does the sheer speed and ability to employ new ideas of those you decry. They break through "that's the way its done" and dream (and deliver) big. Throw in some face recognition, speech recognition, a spot of semantic analysis, and they have some working in an afternoon.
And if you look at where the world is getting better, rather than worse, it's generally those same people that are doing it.
#71
Re: How outdoorsie is Melbourne/Brisbane REALLY for a family?
Im bored in Canada- so spotted this
I certainly think computers are in excellent aid to stratify risk. I was interested as to why you felt that GPs particularly would be at risk of losing their jobs. For example, that you gave was more cardiological rather than general practice. I am certainly not worried about my job. I spent my days, even without computers, trying to work out the motivation as to why some patients have come in to see me-it is quite often nothing to do with any medical condition!
Our work involves a huge amount of communication skills, I'm not blowing my own trumpet, and certainly use technology to help guide me. AI. I feel certainly currently is less able to either take a half decent history, make diagnosis, if necessary reassure the patient sufficiently.
In the future, progress, may be made that certainly I have no worries at the moment about job loss
I certainly think computers are in excellent aid to stratify risk. I was interested as to why you felt that GPs particularly would be at risk of losing their jobs. For example, that you gave was more cardiological rather than general practice. I am certainly not worried about my job. I spent my days, even without computers, trying to work out the motivation as to why some patients have come in to see me-it is quite often nothing to do with any medical condition!
Our work involves a huge amount of communication skills, I'm not blowing my own trumpet, and certainly use technology to help guide me. AI. I feel certainly currently is less able to either take a half decent history, make diagnosis, if necessary reassure the patient sufficiently.
In the future, progress, may be made that certainly I have no worries at the moment about job loss
First, and this was from a GP themselves, they said that 80% of patients coming to them had what they said they had or was obvious from symptoms. Came in with flu, had flu, was sent away with prescription. 16% needed a test undertaken to work out exactly was wrong (could be this, could be that), and 4% they had no idea and just tried stuff in the hope it would go away. That was borne out by stats, etc.
So, straight off, there's scope for automated diagnosis to cut 4/5 GPs. And actually it could probably manage a good part of that 16% too, so 9/10 maybe.
As for motivation and the worried well - that goes together with history and understanding the context. Both are within the scope of deep learning to recognise the patterns as well as the GP (and potentially do better, since you can have intercommunication between AI 'doctors').
In addition, GPs particularly have the problem that they are usually significantly out of date with current knowledge, and get corrupted by pharmaceutical companies. They also only know what they see, and so can't easily spot multiple instances across an area (which AIs can).
And as far as reassurance was concerned, there were two aspects. First was the authoritative voice, giving them confidence of what they had. The second was the compassionate voice, listening and telling them it was OK. And what we found was that the second tended to be best done by a nurse, and the first the doctor; but that it didn't actually rely on the human element, just tone, information, etc.
Now, looking at the types of patients, you can group them into those wanting someone to talk to and listen to them, those with something wrong wanting it fixed, and those that don't want to go anywhere near a doctor because they are bad news. And the thing that came out was that the second and third types were generally happier with a machine, and one probably in the home, than they were going off to a GP and waiting around for ages for the GP to give them 5-8mins total. The first were better off with a nurse.
Pull all that together and the upshot is that there is ample scope for automating 9/10 GP posts with an AI dealing with most of the rote stuff and referring on to a nurse for tests, etc., or a human GP for the difficult cases. The general level of care across the population would improve, and costs be cut. Automating data gathering was a separate area, but equally open to significant improvement.
I'd say the biggest impediment to it actually happening is not if it would work, but doctors protecting their empire and trying to make sure it doesn't get implemented. Certainly that's the experience that people have found (eg NHSDirect getting nobbled by the doctors). However, with costs rising as they are, eventually it will fall and there's a good chance it will switch quite fast.
#72
Re: How outdoorsie is Melbourne/Brisbane REALLY for a family?
Good points, but certain case law cannot be distilled to points : you'd also have to capture the case correctly as well. Any lawyer will tell you case law can be complex where many are differentiated on small details of circumstance and intent. And again you can't just adjust the system for appeal. You could of course check the inputs once more but that is not an appeal against the decision itself.
You can make significant inroads in the bread and butter stuff with automation (no paying for expensive lawyers, etc.) and you can deal with quite a lot of the criminal court as well. High court is more taxing, but even here the desire is to cut down on interminable grandstanding.
I wonder how long it will be before there is the first AI in court, but assuming it does well, it would open the flood gates. I'd guess 50+% of the total number of lawyers etc. could go. And indeed the researcher type role has already been decimated.
Here's an article on some of what is already being done, even before most of the deep learning advances hit :
Is artificial intelligence making lawyers a disappearing profession? | afr.com
PS Don't underestimate the ability of AIs to discern and make a case. They have been taking in the details of sports matches and churning out newspaper copy for a while now. Courts are no less formulaic.
#73
Re: How outdoorsie is Melbourne/Brisbane REALLY for a family?
Please excuse my delay in replying-I was clearly carrying out a pointless and useless day of existence looking after my patients. My typing skills are clearly going to be limited as one hand has all day, been wrestled behind my back by "The Big Bad Pharma" and it is only now that the circulation is just returning…
Sadly, this confirms my suspicions. You may be clever in your field but this field certainly does not seem to incorporate health economics and clearly shows a significant lack of knowledge in what happens in general practice in the 21st century. You are clearly showing unnecessary symptoms of paranoia with your suggestion of doctors protecting their empire. I feel that my job is safe for a few more years yet- I welcome technology and use it every day in my practice.
NHS direct was the biggest waste of money aside from trying to centralise NHS clinical records, both a huge amount of money that should have been spent elsewhere which is sorely needed. I spent years having to receive information from hospitals because someone was acting on protocols at the NHS direct desk for example a child had a headache, this was therefore taken to be a likely sign of meningitis and they were subsequently transported by emergency ambulance to the hospital, at vast expense and totally unnecessarily. Telephone triage is quite a tricky thing to do and only I feel comes with years of experience and subtle nuances that one can determine when talking to patients/relatives on the phone give us a fairly good idea as to the urgency of the situation . Mindlessly going through lists of protocol questions to then subsequently request an unnecessary ambulance is I feel both expensive and pointless and it does no favours to the patient population.
OK, well this is something I've done in the past - so I can talk on it.
First, and this was from a GP themselves, they said that 80% of patients coming to them had what they said they had or was obvious from symptoms. Came in with flu, had flu, was sent away with prescription. 16% needed a test undertaken to work out exactly was wrong (could be this, could be that), and 4% they had no idea and just tried stuff in the hope it would go away. That was borne out by stats, etc.
I was worried that I might use slightly anecdotal evidence basing experience off decades of general practice myself, having worked in two countries, several different environments including out of hours alongside many GP colleagues. I'm also married to a GP who shares her experiences with me. I have also years of surgical practice behind me as well. Clearly however your anecdotal evidence certainly trumps mine, although maybe have read this wrong, are you actually just quoting one single GPs experience? Please point me towards the source of your stats
It is certainly not accurate in my experience nor that of my colleagues. I would say 30% max is nearer the mark with regard to ability to make a self-diagnosis.
Yes, if they come in with a painful knee, they have a painful knee-this is not not a diagnosis but a symptom. How would you envisage somebody with said painful knee getting diagnosed by AI? If say it imaged the knee and showed us that there was say moderate osteoarthritis, what would it do then? Referral to an orthopedic surgeon is unnecessary and expensive, what would the clever robot do then?
So, straight off, there's scope for automated diagnosis to cut 4/5 GPs. And actually it could probably manage a good part of that 16% too, so 9/10 maybe.
See above-you have to give me evidence for your comments, you simply can't just drop figures like that without backup
As for motivation and the worried well - that goes together with history and understanding the context. Both are within the scope of deep learning to recognise the patterns as well as the GP (and potentially do better, since you can have intercommunication between AI 'doctors').
In addition, GPs particularly have the problem that they are usually significantly out of date with current knowledge, and get corrupted by pharmaceutical companies. They also only know what they see, and so can't easily spot multiple instances across an area (which AIs can).
What an incredibly rude comment, how did you come to the conclusion that we are significantly out of date with current knowledge--probably the same presumption which comes from your second asinine comment about corruption by pharmaceutical companies. Do you wear a tin hat?
What sort of influence do you think the companies have on us? I have no financial interest nor gain from any drug company, Quite rightly, many years ago, they stopped freeloading gifts onto GPs. I'm not saying that some specialists don't get sponsored by drug companies for research or for giving talks but certainly not the GPs.
Every day, if there is something I do not know, I will research it-we have access to IT resources-We typically use for example "Uptodate.com" multiple times per day to gain the most up-to-date multi sourced research, give patients information sheets which give reasoned accurate and evidence-based advice.
And as far as reassurance was concerned, there were two aspects. First was the authoritative voice, giving them confidence of what they had. The second was the compassionate voice, listening and telling them it was OK. And what we found was that the second tended to be best done by a nurse, and the first the doctor; but that it didn't actually rely on the human element, just tone, information, etc.
So it is clearly black and white in your eyes. We have the old-style do this or else type attitude which does not give patients any respect in maintaining their own autonomy looking after their health, Or we will get nursey involved
to lightly pat you on your head and say everything is going to be okay
Now, looking at the types of patients, you can group them into those wanting someone to talk to and listen to them, those with something wrong wanting it fixed, and those that don't want to go anywhere near a doctor because they are bad news. And the thing that came out was that the second and third types were generally happier with a machine, and one probably in the home, than they were going off to a GP and waiting around for ages for the GP to give them 5-8mins total. The first were better off with a nurse.
GPs and indeed nurses are not there to be just a pair of ears. The bulk of these patients come in because they feel that there is something wrong which they want fixed. Obviously those that don't want to go anywhere near a Dr. are unlikely to seek any medical help-if they did, they would be getting their blood pressure for example checked at the drugstore-clearly they don't. Please show me the evidence with your comments with regard to people being happy with the machine, I will be fascinated to read this. In Australia, You may get shortchanged with regard to time, I cannot say because I don't work there but that certainly isn't true here. With regard to the first group wanting a listening ear, a nurse is certainly not appropriate and it is, I feel patronising for you to suggest that it is
Pull all that together and the upshot is that there is ample scope for automating 9/10 GP posts with an AI dealing with most of the rote stuff and referring on to a nurse for tests, etc., or a human GP for the difficult cases. The general level of care across the population would improve, and costs be cut. Automating data gathering was a separate area, but equally open to significant improvement.
For reasons above, I feel that you have written complete BS
I'd say the biggest impediment to it actually happening is not if it would work, but doctors protecting their empire and trying to make sure it doesn't get implemented. Certainly that's the experience that people have found (eg NHSDirect getting nobbled by the doctors). However, with costs rising as they are, eventually it will fall and there's a good chance it will switch quite fast.
First, and this was from a GP themselves, they said that 80% of patients coming to them had what they said they had or was obvious from symptoms. Came in with flu, had flu, was sent away with prescription. 16% needed a test undertaken to work out exactly was wrong (could be this, could be that), and 4% they had no idea and just tried stuff in the hope it would go away. That was borne out by stats, etc.
I was worried that I might use slightly anecdotal evidence basing experience off decades of general practice myself, having worked in two countries, several different environments including out of hours alongside many GP colleagues. I'm also married to a GP who shares her experiences with me. I have also years of surgical practice behind me as well. Clearly however your anecdotal evidence certainly trumps mine, although maybe have read this wrong, are you actually just quoting one single GPs experience? Please point me towards the source of your stats
It is certainly not accurate in my experience nor that of my colleagues. I would say 30% max is nearer the mark with regard to ability to make a self-diagnosis.
Yes, if they come in with a painful knee, they have a painful knee-this is not not a diagnosis but a symptom. How would you envisage somebody with said painful knee getting diagnosed by AI? If say it imaged the knee and showed us that there was say moderate osteoarthritis, what would it do then? Referral to an orthopedic surgeon is unnecessary and expensive, what would the clever robot do then?
So, straight off, there's scope for automated diagnosis to cut 4/5 GPs. And actually it could probably manage a good part of that 16% too, so 9/10 maybe.
See above-you have to give me evidence for your comments, you simply can't just drop figures like that without backup
As for motivation and the worried well - that goes together with history and understanding the context. Both are within the scope of deep learning to recognise the patterns as well as the GP (and potentially do better, since you can have intercommunication between AI 'doctors').
In addition, GPs particularly have the problem that they are usually significantly out of date with current knowledge, and get corrupted by pharmaceutical companies. They also only know what they see, and so can't easily spot multiple instances across an area (which AIs can).
What an incredibly rude comment, how did you come to the conclusion that we are significantly out of date with current knowledge--probably the same presumption which comes from your second asinine comment about corruption by pharmaceutical companies. Do you wear a tin hat?
What sort of influence do you think the companies have on us? I have no financial interest nor gain from any drug company, Quite rightly, many years ago, they stopped freeloading gifts onto GPs. I'm not saying that some specialists don't get sponsored by drug companies for research or for giving talks but certainly not the GPs.
Every day, if there is something I do not know, I will research it-we have access to IT resources-We typically use for example "Uptodate.com" multiple times per day to gain the most up-to-date multi sourced research, give patients information sheets which give reasoned accurate and evidence-based advice.
And as far as reassurance was concerned, there were two aspects. First was the authoritative voice, giving them confidence of what they had. The second was the compassionate voice, listening and telling them it was OK. And what we found was that the second tended to be best done by a nurse, and the first the doctor; but that it didn't actually rely on the human element, just tone, information, etc.
So it is clearly black and white in your eyes. We have the old-style do this or else type attitude which does not give patients any respect in maintaining their own autonomy looking after their health, Or we will get nursey involved
to lightly pat you on your head and say everything is going to be okay
Now, looking at the types of patients, you can group them into those wanting someone to talk to and listen to them, those with something wrong wanting it fixed, and those that don't want to go anywhere near a doctor because they are bad news. And the thing that came out was that the second and third types were generally happier with a machine, and one probably in the home, than they were going off to a GP and waiting around for ages for the GP to give them 5-8mins total. The first were better off with a nurse.
GPs and indeed nurses are not there to be just a pair of ears. The bulk of these patients come in because they feel that there is something wrong which they want fixed. Obviously those that don't want to go anywhere near a Dr. are unlikely to seek any medical help-if they did, they would be getting their blood pressure for example checked at the drugstore-clearly they don't. Please show me the evidence with your comments with regard to people being happy with the machine, I will be fascinated to read this. In Australia, You may get shortchanged with regard to time, I cannot say because I don't work there but that certainly isn't true here. With regard to the first group wanting a listening ear, a nurse is certainly not appropriate and it is, I feel patronising for you to suggest that it is
Pull all that together and the upshot is that there is ample scope for automating 9/10 GP posts with an AI dealing with most of the rote stuff and referring on to a nurse for tests, etc., or a human GP for the difficult cases. The general level of care across the population would improve, and costs be cut. Automating data gathering was a separate area, but equally open to significant improvement.
For reasons above, I feel that you have written complete BS
I'd say the biggest impediment to it actually happening is not if it would work, but doctors protecting their empire and trying to make sure it doesn't get implemented. Certainly that's the experience that people have found (eg NHSDirect getting nobbled by the doctors). However, with costs rising as they are, eventually it will fall and there's a good chance it will switch quite fast.
NHS direct was the biggest waste of money aside from trying to centralise NHS clinical records, both a huge amount of money that should have been spent elsewhere which is sorely needed. I spent years having to receive information from hospitals because someone was acting on protocols at the NHS direct desk for example a child had a headache, this was therefore taken to be a likely sign of meningitis and they were subsequently transported by emergency ambulance to the hospital, at vast expense and totally unnecessarily. Telephone triage is quite a tricky thing to do and only I feel comes with years of experience and subtle nuances that one can determine when talking to patients/relatives on the phone give us a fairly good idea as to the urgency of the situation . Mindlessly going through lists of protocol questions to then subsequently request an unnecessary ambulance is I feel both expensive and pointless and it does no favours to the patient population.
Last edited by Stinkypup; Jun 23rd 2017 at 4:27 am.
#74
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Re: How outdoorsie is Melbourne/Brisbane REALLY for a family?
Please excuse my delay in replying-I was clearly carrying out a pointless and useless day of existence looking after my patients. My typing skills are clearly going to be limited as one hand has all day, been wrestled behind my back by "The Big Bad Pharma" and it is only now that the circulation is just returning…
Sadly, this confirms my suspicions. You may be clever in your field but this field certainly does not seem to incorporate health economics and clearly shows a significant lack of knowledge in what happens in general practice in the 21st century. You are clearly showing unnecessary symptoms of paranoia with your suggestion of doctors protecting their empire. I feel that my job is safe for a few more years yet- I welcome technology and use it every day in my practice.
NHS direct was the biggest waste of money aside from trying to centralise NHS clinical records, both a huge amount of money that should have been spent elsewhere which is sorely needed. I spent years having to receive information from hospitals because someone was acting on protocols at the NHS direct desk for example a child had a headache, this was therefore taken to be a likely sign of meningitis and they were subsequently transported by emergency ambulance to the hospital, at vast expense and totally unnecessarily. Telephone triage is quite a tricky thing to do and only I feel comes with years of experience and subtle nuances that one can determine when talking to patients/relatives on the phone give us a fairly good idea as to the urgency of the situation . Mindlessly going through lists of protocol questions to then subsequently request an unnecessary ambulance is I feel both expensive and pointless and it does no favours to the patient population.
Sadly, this confirms my suspicions. You may be clever in your field but this field certainly does not seem to incorporate health economics and clearly shows a significant lack of knowledge in what happens in general practice in the 21st century. You are clearly showing unnecessary symptoms of paranoia with your suggestion of doctors protecting their empire. I feel that my job is safe for a few more years yet- I welcome technology and use it every day in my practice.
NHS direct was the biggest waste of money aside from trying to centralise NHS clinical records, both a huge amount of money that should have been spent elsewhere which is sorely needed. I spent years having to receive information from hospitals because someone was acting on protocols at the NHS direct desk for example a child had a headache, this was therefore taken to be a likely sign of meningitis and they were subsequently transported by emergency ambulance to the hospital, at vast expense and totally unnecessarily. Telephone triage is quite a tricky thing to do and only I feel comes with years of experience and subtle nuances that one can determine when talking to patients/relatives on the phone give us a fairly good idea as to the urgency of the situation . Mindlessly going through lists of protocol questions to then subsequently request an unnecessary ambulance is I feel both expensive and pointless and it does no favours to the patient population.
NHS is a fantastic service and from what my husband has said speaking to doctors, it has alleviated a lot of time being used up unnecessarily in medical centres.
This aside, I have to say this is way off topic of this thread. Unless I'm missing something about a doctor in Canada and his experiences there in the medical profession having anything to do with life in Australia?
#75
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: How outdoorsie is Melbourne/Brisbane REALLY for a family?
Please excuse my delay in replying-I was clearly carrying out a pointless and useless day of existence looking after my patients. My typing skills are clearly going to be limited as one hand has all day, been wrestled behind my back by "The Big Bad Pharma" and it is only now that the circulation is just returning…
Sadly, this confirms my suspicions. You may be clever in your field but this field certainly does not seem to incorporate health economics and clearly shows a significant lack of knowledge in what happens in general practice in the 21st century. You are clearly showing unnecessary symptoms of paranoia with your suggestion of doctors protecting their empire. I feel that my job is safe for a few more years yet- I welcome technology and use it every day in my practice.
NHS direct was the biggest waste of money aside from trying to centralise NHS clinical records, both a huge amount of money that should have been spent elsewhere which is sorely needed. I spent years having to receive information from hospitals because someone was acting on protocols at the NHS direct desk for example a child had a headache, this was therefore taken to be a likely sign of meningitis and they were subsequently transported by emergency ambulance to the hospital, at vast expense and totally unnecessarily. Telephone triage is quite a tricky thing to do and only I feel comes with years of experience and subtle nuances that one can determine when talking to patients/relatives on the phone give us a fairly good idea as to the urgency of the situation . Mindlessly going through lists of protocol questions to then subsequently request an unnecessary ambulance is I feel both expensive and pointless and it does no favours to the patient population.
Sadly, this confirms my suspicions. You may be clever in your field but this field certainly does not seem to incorporate health economics and clearly shows a significant lack of knowledge in what happens in general practice in the 21st century. You are clearly showing unnecessary symptoms of paranoia with your suggestion of doctors protecting their empire. I feel that my job is safe for a few more years yet- I welcome technology and use it every day in my practice.
NHS direct was the biggest waste of money aside from trying to centralise NHS clinical records, both a huge amount of money that should have been spent elsewhere which is sorely needed. I spent years having to receive information from hospitals because someone was acting on protocols at the NHS direct desk for example a child had a headache, this was therefore taken to be a likely sign of meningitis and they were subsequently transported by emergency ambulance to the hospital, at vast expense and totally unnecessarily. Telephone triage is quite a tricky thing to do and only I feel comes with years of experience and subtle nuances that one can determine when talking to patients/relatives on the phone give us a fairly good idea as to the urgency of the situation . Mindlessly going through lists of protocol questions to then subsequently request an unnecessary ambulance is I feel both expensive and pointless and it does no favours to the patient population.
Automation has already done most of its job depletion to GP's. Dr Google.
And are GP jobs declining? No way. In fact every time I go to a GP, there's not an Australian GP in sight. All newly imported due to the GP shortage.
There's a few things will keep GP's alive.
1. Take your knee example. A GP can't fix a bung knee, but you need the GP for a referral to the specialist. The whole referral thing is a winner for GP's
2. Human and emotional interaction. You may have a physical ailment but humans need the human touch and reassurance from another human. On top of that humans need options and those options often revolve around ones personal and emotional circumstances. Can AI be taught that? Not in our lifetime. But if they did, and this is the scary part, you might be finding yourself emotionally attracted to bots.