Let’s imagine the possibilities and theoretically demo the results based on current knowledge:
-
yes AI made the process fast and the patient did not die unnecessarily.
-
same but the patient died well.
-
same but the patient died.
-
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.
What baffles me is why would you use an LLM when what you need is a digital inventory manager. Not bashing your argument’s merits. On the contrary, I think it depicts very well how people will shove AI-marketed shit on already-solved problems and make everyone’s lives worse because it’s ✨modern✨.
It’s the same crap like with blockchain.
People have no idea how sophisticated modern IT systems already are, and if you glue fancy words on solved problems, people will cheer you for being super innovative.
Ugh, blockchain. During the pandemic, I had absolutely no work to do so my boss asked me to make a presentation for him to present on the merits of blockchain. When my response was that it’s overhyped bullshit, he was not thrilled.
I made the requested presentation but it made me feel dirty, so I alt texted every slide’s graphics to include the counterpoint to the bullshit benefits being presented.
My company tried to jump onto the bandwagon in 2018 or so, but it fizzled out very quickly. Fortunately.
It’s not if you actually know what it is and what it’s for… A trustless public ledger.
My question is: is it being used for inventory management? Or is it being used to feed the entire patient file in to make sure the Pharmacist doesn’t make a mistake as well. Double checking for conflict in the prescription interactions and stuff like that.
Should it be relied as the only thing? No. Is it nice to have another set of eyes on every task? Probably? Could this be solved with the hiring of more pharmacy techs and an education system not driven by profit margins for the investors that actually facilitates the workforce’s technical skills? Yes.
Idk. Just sounds like shitty companies being shitty companies all the way down.
Further to this, to human is top err - so why would you start to rely on something that’s confidently incorrect so often.
It’s only a matter of time before this misleads someone terribly
Actual pharmacist here, working in pharmacy IT.
Unlike other industries, Pharmacy is not particularly thrilled about or interested in AI. In fact, my hospital explicitly blocks access to all LLMs.
I was actually kind of hoping to see what Microsoft is claiming here, and just walked away from this post more confused.
Good thing, you don’t want medical advice from an LLM
You’re not great taking medical advice from a doctor either, seeing how often they’re wrong.
That’s fair, but they tend to be more right than an LLM :P
I was trying to find an article I read about a year ago, about an experiment where AI was assisting a doctor. Where it suggested questions and possible diagnosis for the doctor to look into.
IIRC the result was both faster and more accurate diagnosis. Too bad I can’t find it again now :(
I’ll take the non-AI using pharmacist for the win. Thank you very much.
They are using AI to help the pharmacist decrypt thedoctors’s writing
Thats actually not a terrible idea.
What I need is AI to fix my doctor visits. Seems like those fucks expect you to be timely but then make you wait in their waiting room for 15 minutes and then an additional 30 inside the patient room. Oh sure, our time is unimportant, it’s all about you, doc.
Is “pharmacists seeing more patients” really a measure of something good? I’m a non-native English speaker so cut me some slack but all I can imagine is just longer queues in the pharmacy and more tired pharmacists (and people who now need to wait in the queue now).
“pharmacists seeing more patients” Implies that the queue moves quicker.
A pharmacist can only have so much time in their shift, so being able to more effectively use that time (see more people) would be a good thing.
