The penalties have to be high enough to dissuade the use of AI as a replacement for human care. For me, I see AI as an assist for doing things like intake questionnaires, spotting inconsistencies in the charts, automating some of the research and digging physicians and nurses have to do to get to know their patients. I see these companies like Persyst who have been doing EEG trending for years, they’re the gold standard when it comes to that stuff, they readily admit it’s not a replacement for a trained physician reading the raw data, but if you talk to a physician they’ll tell you it’s a huge help to speed up their read times but agree it’s not a replacement for them.
The penalties have to be high enough to dissuade the use of AI as a replacement for human care. For me, I see AI as an assist for doing things like intake questionnaires, spotting inconsistencies in the charts, automating some of the research and digging physicians and nurses have to do to get to know their patients. I see these companies like Persyst who have been doing EEG trending for years, they’re the gold standard when it comes to that stuff, they readily admit it’s not a replacement for a trained physician reading the raw data, but if you talk to a physician they’ll tell you it’s a huge help to speed up their read times but agree it’s not a replacement for them.