Let’s imagine the possibilities and theoretically demo the results based on current knowledge:

  1. yes AI made the process fast and the patient did not die unnecessarily.

  2. same but the patient died well.

  3. same but the patient died.

  4. same as either 1, 2, or 3 but AI made things slower.

Demo:

Pharmacy: Patient requires amoxicillin for a painful infection of the ear while allergic to penicillin:

AI: Sure! You will find penicillin in Isle 23 box number 5.

Pharmacy: the patient needs amoxicillin actually.

AI: Sure! The Patient must have an allergic reaction to more commonly used anti inflammatory medications.

Pharmacy: actually amoxicillin is more of an antibiotic, where can I find it?

AI: Sure! While you are correct that amoxicillin is an antibiotic, it is a well studied result that after an infection inflammation is reduced. You can find the inflammation through out the body including the region where the infection is located.

Pharmacy: amoxicillin location!

AI: Sure! Amoxicillin was invented in Beecham Research Laboratories.

  • Laylong@programming.dev
    2·
    4 个月前

    I second the comment about this being a reason to reduce technician hours. Worked at the busiest store in my district the last 15 years of my career. We went from 3 pharmacists with several hours overlap on weekdays, down to 2 pharmacists with no overlap. Tech hours once was high enough to have 5 technicians on between 10-6, down to only having 5 total on staff. We went from a 24 location, down to being open only 11.5 hours a day. We were one block up from a Walgreens and one block down from a RiteAid that both ended up closing, and getting most of their customers who walked there. We had 2 major exoduses of staff and lost a good number of long time patients in the enshitification.

    Even in a world where some new AI model could improve pharmacist throughput, it doesn’t compare to the skeleton crewing of corporate pharmacy bottom-line-go-up.