Published on 2/3/2025
AI “co-pilots” are increasingly assisting clinicians by handling routine tasks and providing decision support alongside human experts. Rather than replacing doctors, these tools serve as “additive co-pilots” that enhance a physician’s capabilities (How health AI can be a physician’s “co-pilot” to improve care | American Medical Association) For example, generative AI scribes now help draft clinical documentation: at University of Utah Health, an ambient AI assistant (Nuance DAX) produces clinic notes that are “85–90% done” by the end of a visit, dramatically reducing the physician’s typing load (How University of Utah Health physicians fell in love with AI) Early results show this can halve the time doctors spend on paperwork, allowing some to see more patients per day (How University of Utah Health physicians fell in love with AI) Physicians report tangible benefits like improved eye contact and communication with patients once freed from constant note-taking (How University of Utah Health physicians fell in love with AI)
AI co-pilots are also showing promise in diagnostic reasoning. In research settings, large language models have reached expert-level performance on clinical cases. One study found GPT-4 achieved a 92% diagnostic reasoning score, outperforming unassisted physicians by 14 percentage points (AI Outperforms AI-Assisted Doctors in Diagnostic Reasoning) Another experiment had an AI system for primary care (Google’s AMIE) go head-to-head with family doctors in simulated patient exams – evaluators rated the AI’s performance higher in 24 out of 26 categories, including medical reasoning and even empathy (AI Outperforms AI-Assisted Doctors in Diagnostic Reasoning) These results suggest well-designed AI can match or exceed human clinicians on certain cognitive tasks. However, the same studies highlight that effective collaboration is not automatic: doctors who had access to an AI assistant did not significantly outperform those without it (76% vs 74% accuracy) because they often ignored or mistrusted the AI’s suggestions (AI Outperforms AI-Assisted Doctors in Diagnostic Reasoning) (AI Outperforms AI-Assisted Doctors in Diagnostic Reasoning) This underscores that human-AI teamwork skills and trust need to evolve in tandem with technology.
In terms of real-world adoption, many clinicians are cautiously optimistic. A late-2023 survey of over 1,000 physicians by the AMA found 72% believe AI can enhance diagnostic abilities and 69% say it improves workflow efficiency, even as an equal 41% are “excited and concerned” about its potential (AMA: Physicians enthusiastic but cautious about health care AI | American Medical Association) Currently, 38% of physicians report using some form of AI tool in practice – most commonly for drafting notes or paperwork (14% use it for discharge notes and documentation, 13% for coding and charting) and for translation or clinical decision support (about 11% each) (AMA: Physicians enthusiastic but cautious about health care AI | American Medical Association) Notably, the primary hope physicians have for AI is relief from “crushing administrative burdens” like documentation and prior authorizations (AMA: Physicians enthusiastic but cautious about health care AI | American Medical Association) (AMA: Physicians enthusiastic but cautious about health care AI | American Medical Association) Early deployments are validating this: large health systems such as Kaiser Permanente have scaled AI-driven documentation assistants across their entire network (How health AI can be a physician’s “co-pilot” to improve care | American Medical Association) and startups like Abridge and others are integrating co-pilot features into electronic records. All these signs point to growing clinical uptake of AI co-pilots as productivity boosters and error-checkers, provided they are integrated thoughtfully into workflows.
Outside of traditional offices, AI and telemedicine are combining to deliver primary care through kiosks and “clinic-in-a-box” solutions. These automated booths and apps aim to expand healthcare access by offering convenient, walk-up medical services with remote or AI guidance. For instance, in the UK, the private service MedicSpot has deployed telehealth kiosks in over 300 community pharmacies ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC ) A patient can walk into a pharmacy kiosk (without an appointment) and be guided through a virtual GP consultation – the booth includes connected diagnostic devices like a stethoscope, blood pressure cuff, thermometer, pulse oximeter and examination camera ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC ) This allows a remote physician (or an AI triage system) to collect vital signs and exam findings in real time, almost as if the patient were in-office ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC ) Major retailers are embracing the model: the British supermarket chain Asda partnered with MedicSpot to offer in-store telehealth clinics equipped for exams ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC )
Similar telehealth pods are rolling out globally. In France, startup H4D raised €15 million to deploy its “Consult Station” – a private telemedicine booth stocked with sensors – to manage chronic disease follow-ups and routine care in underserved areas ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC ) In the U.S., companies like Amwell market modular telehealth kiosks (from tabletop units to fully enclosed rooms) that integrate cameras, touchscreens and medical devices for vitals monitoring ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC ) These systems have garnered significant investment (Amwell raised $194 million by 2020) as healthcare providers look to kiosk-based telemedicine to reach rural and remote populations ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC )
In developing countries, AI-enabled health kiosks are viewed as a leapfrogging technology to tackle provider shortages. “Health ATM” machines in India, for example, are being piloted as touch-screen kiosks that can autonomously measure basic health indicators – pulse, blood pressure, temperature, BMI, blood glucose, oxygen saturation, EKG and more – without any paramedic assistance (Preventive healthcare in India gets shot in arm with 'Health ATMs' - The Economic Times) Over 60+ medical tests can be done within minutes by these kiosks, which are now deployed in some public spaces as part of preventive screening drives in northern India (Preventive healthcare in India gets shot in arm with 'Health ATMs' - The Economic Times) The goal is to catch issues early and route patients to the right care, using AI to flag anomalies in the results (Health ATM | Health Kiosk Manufacturer In India - Clinics On Cloud)
Outcomes & benefits: Early evidence suggests these AI-driven kiosks improve convenience and access. Patients can get quick check-ups or consults without waiting weeks for a GP visit, which is especially impactful in areas with doctor shortages. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the value of such kiosks became even clearer – they enabled “medical distancing” by letting patients get care without physical contact. Global health authorities noted that telehealth (including kiosks) became a primary method to reduce virus exposure, helping protect both patients and providers ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC ) In summary, AI-powered primary care kiosks are broadening entry points to the health system, from shopping malls in California (where startups are launching “AI doctor pods” for walk-in visits) to villages in India. While many deployments are still private-sector led, they demonstrate the potential for improving healthcare access and screening at scale when regulation and evidence catch up to allow broader public adoption ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC )
Within hospitals, AI technologies are streamlining workflows from the emergency department to the imaging suite. In emergency rooms, AI is being applied to triage and urgent decision-making. Machine learning models can rapidly analyze triage data – symptoms, vitals, history – to predict patient risk and prioritize care. Studies have shown that AI algorithms can triage patients as accurately as experienced staff: for example, a deep learning model (TextRNN) was able to predict emergency case severity with 86.2% accuracy and assign cases to the correct clinical department 94.3% of the time when tested on over 161,000 ER visits ( Use of Artificial Intelligence in Triage in Hospital Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review - PMC ) By standardizing triage levels, such tools could reduce human variation and ensure critical patients aren’t overlooked ( Use of Artificial Intelligence in Triage in Hospital Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review - PMC ) ( Use of Artificial Intelligence in Triage in Hospital Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review - PMC ) Some ERs have piloted AI-based systems that listen to the reason for visit and vital signs to immediately flag high-risk cases (like possible sepsis, stroke, or heart attack) for faster physician evaluation ( Use of Artificial Intelligence in Triage in Hospital Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review - PMC ) ( Use of Artificial Intelligence in Triage in Hospital Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review - PMC ) In Denmark, an AI “co-pilot” called Corti is used by emergency dispatchers during 911 calls: it listens to the caller and in real time alerts the dispatcher if the patient might be in cardiac arrest. Corti’s system can reportedly detect out-of-hospital cardiac arrests with up to 95% accuracy from audio cues – outperforming human dispatchers who correctly recognized cardiac arrest ~73% of the time (Startup Analyzes 911 Calls to Identify Cardiac Arrest Victims) This kind of AI support in acute care is already “saving lives, likely by encouraging patients to present [for care] before their illness is too far along,” according to early deployments (Artificial Intelligence for Emergency Care Triage - JAMA Network)
In radiology, AI has rapidly become a valuable tool for image analysis and workflow efficiency. As of 2023, roughly 77% of all FDA-cleared medical AI devices are in the radiology domain (over 530 algorithms) ( FDA publishes list of AI-enabled medical devices | UW Radiology ) ranging from AI that flags suspicious lung nodules on CT scans to algorithms that read chest x-rays for signs of pneumonia or tuberculosis. These tools act as a second set of eyes, often operating continuously in the background. There is strong evidence that AI can equal or exceed human experts in image interpretation for specific tasks: in breast cancer screening, a landmark randomized trial in Sweden found that an AI system reading mammograms detected 20% more cancers than standard double reading by radiologists, without increasing false positives (THE LANCET ONCOLOGY: First randomised trial f | EurekAlert!) Importantly, using AI cut the radiologists’ reading workload almost in half – a 44% reduction in the number of mammograms needing human review (THE LANCET ONCOLOGY: First randomised trial f | EurekAlert!) This suggests AI could dramatically boost productivity in screening programs, an answer to severe radiologist shortages in many countries (e.g. an 8% shortfall in breast radiologists in the UK) (THE LANCET ONCOLOGY: First randomised trial f | EurekAlert!) Other studies likewise show AI algorithms can screen images fast and accurately: in one U.S. trial, an FDA-approved stroke detection AI notified specialists of large vessel blockages 30 minutes faster on average, expediting time-critical treatment (Validation of AI to Limit Delays in Acute Stroke Treatment - Viz.ai) (AI tech helps partner hospital reduce stroke-transfer time by half) In oncology, AI-driven planning tools can analyze medical images and help design radiation or surgical plans in a fraction of the time it takes humans, which accelerates care without compromising quality.
Beyond diagnosis, AI is optimizing treatment planning and hospital operations. In surgery, “robotic” AI systems assist with precision – for example, AI co-pilot bronchoscopy robots are being developed to guide less-experienced surgeons in navigating lungs safely (AI co-pilot bronchoscope robot - PMC - PubMed Central) In oncology, AI algorithms help craft personalized chemotherapy regimens by analyzing patient genetics and outcomes data (though early attempts like IBM’s Watson for Oncology revealed the challenges of getting this right). Hospitals are also using AI for logistical improvements: managing operating room schedules, predicting which inpatients are likely to deteriorate or be readmitted, and even automating aspects of pharmacy dispensing and sterilization. A McKinsey analysis estimates AI could save 15–20% of hours in tasks like scheduling, supply management, and patient flow optimization in hospitals, which helps free up staff for direct patient care (Healthcare IT Spending: Innovation, Integration, and AI) While these applications are less visible to patients, they contribute to a more efficient health system. For example, the Mayo Clinic reported an AI-powered scheduling system that cut MRI appointment wait times by weeks, and multiple hospitals have deployed AI early-warning systems for sepsis that alert nurses to subtle vital sign changes, enabling earlier interventions (some systems have reduced sepsis mortality by double-digit percentages, though results vary).
Ireland-specific developments: Ireland’s hospitals are beginning to explore AI in workflows, albeit slowly. Irish radiologists have tested AI in pathology and imaging – for instance, Dublin-based startup Deciphex uses AI to help pathologists screen slides faster, indicating a path for augmenting an under-resourced pathology sector (Bringing tech to healthcare: Ireland has ‘a lot of red tape’) However, experts note that Ireland has lagged in health IT adoption; basic digitization is behind (Ireland was the only EU country where patients couldn’t even view their health records online as of 2022) (Bringing tech to healthcare: Ireland has ‘a lot of red tape’) This means AI integration starts from a lower baseline of digital infrastructure. On the positive side, Irish researchers are contributing to cutting-edge AI solutions (e.g. using explainable AI for quicker Alzheimer’s diagnosis in a European project (Bringing tech to healthcare: Ireland has ‘a lot of red tape’) , and there is recognition that automation could alleviate workforce strains in the HSE. Going forward, as Ireland invests in eHealth systems, we can expect more pilot programs bringing AI into hospital settings – learning from UK’s NHS and others – to improve imaging backlogs, triage, and treatment planning.
Widespread trust is crucial for AI’s future in medicine. Today, public opinion is mixed and somewhat polarized on this issue. Surveys of patients and the public reveal both intrigue and skepticism about AI as a health tool. On one hand, a 2024 consumer survey found a striking 64% of respondents said they would trust a diagnosis from AI over one made by a human doctor (Nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed say they’d trust a diagnosis from AI over a human doctor) Comfort with AI was highest for medical imaging analysis – 60% of people (across generations) were okay with AI reading scans, acknowledging that many studies show AI can spot cancers on images effectively (Nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed say they’d trust a diagnosis from AI over a human doctor) Younger generations in particular are more open: over 80% of Gen Z said they’d trust an AI’s diagnosis over a doctor’s, compared to ~57% of Baby Boomers (Nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed say they’d trust a diagnosis from AI over a human doctor) This suggests growing familiarity with technology is translating into greater willingness to accept AI-driven care, at least for technical tasks like reading x-rays.
On the other hand, many people remain uncomfortable with AI in a personal healthcare context. A 2023 Pew Research poll of Americans found 60% would be uncomfortable if their own provider relied on AI for their diagnosis or treatment recommendation (How Americans View Use of AI in Health Care and Medicine by Doctors and Other Providers | Pew Research Center) (How Americans View Use of AI in Health Care and Medicine by Doctors and Other Providers | Pew Research Center) Another survey reported “three out of four” U.S. patients do not trust AI in a healthcare setting (AI in healthcare statistics: 62 findings from 18 research reports) Key concerns fueling this distrust include fears about accuracy and accountability – in one poll, 54% cited “accuracy of diagnoses” as their top worry with healthcare AI (Nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed say they’d trust a diagnosis from AI over a human doctor) Privacy is another major issue: over half of Americans believe AI would worsen the security of health data (How Americans View Use of AI in Health Care and Medicine by Doctors and Other Providers | Pew Research Center) (How Americans View Use of AI in Health Care and Medicine by Doctors and Other Providers | Pew Research Center) There’s also an emotional component: 57% think AI would make the patient-provider relationship worse by removing human empathy and personal connection (How Americans View Use of AI in Health Care and Medicine by Doctors and Other Providers | Pew Research Center) These worries lead the majority to feel that healthcare might be adopting AI “too fast before fully understanding the risks” (How Americans View Use of AI in Health Care and Medicine by Doctors and Other Providers | Pew Research Center)
When it comes to clinicians, trust in AI is cautious as well. The AMA physician survey noted above found doctors want rigorous proof and transparency: 89% of physicians said they need AI tools to clearly explain their sources of information and logic before they’ll trust them in practice (AI in healthcare statistics: 62 findings from 18 research reports) Frontline clinicians are understandably wary of black-box algorithms making life-and-death decisions without insight into how they work. Still, many doctors acknowledge AI’s inevitability and potential – nearly two-thirds of physicians see advantages to using AI in care (AMA: Physicians enthusiastic but cautious about health care AI | American Medical Association) and a majority think it can reduce mistakes and bias in healthcare if applied properly (How Americans View Use of AI in Health Care and Medicine by Doctors and Other Providers | Pew Research Center)
Ireland’s public sentiment appears similar. A recent Ipsos survey measuring trust across various professions and technologies found that only 24% of the Irish public trust artificial intelligence – a low score compared to trust in human doctors (94%) or nurses (97%) (Trust in Ireland's healthcare pros highest - Marketing.ie) (Trust in Ireland's healthcare pros highest - Marketing.ie) This indicates a significant trust gap that Irish health authorities will need to address as they introduce AI systems. On a positive note, an EY Ireland poll suggested patients are “ready for their data to be used in the right way to maximize health outcomes,” implying that if AI tools are transparently shown to improve care, Irish people may support them (Bringing tech to healthcare: Ireland has ‘a lot of red tape’) Building and maintaining trust will require clear communication about AI’s benefits, limitations, and safeguards. Public education and patient engagement are increasingly seen as part of any AI rollout – whether it’s informing a patient that an algorithm helped read their x-ray, or obtaining consent for AI-driven treatment recommendations. In summary, trust in AI is still fragile; while many see its promise, both patients and providers seek assurance that these systems are safe, unbiased, and used to complement (not replace) the human touch in healthcare.
The rapid rise of AI in medicine has prompted equally rapid efforts to develop ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks. Policymakers and professional bodies around the world are actively shaping rules to ensure AI is adopted responsibly. A core principle emerging in many strategies – including Ireland’s national AI strategy – is that AI in healthcare must be “responsible, ethical and trustworthy” by design ([PDF] AI - Here for Good - A National Artificial Intelligence Strategy for Ireland) This means issues like bias, transparency, privacy, and accountability are at the forefront of regulatory discussions.
Key ethical challenges that regulators are addressing include:
Bias and fairness: AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate biases present in training data. For example, if an AI is trained mostly on data from one ethnic group or one country, its predictions may be less accurate for others. Such bias in AI could deliver “erroneous medical evaluations” and exacerbate healthcare inequalities ( Trust and medical AI: the challenges we face and the expertise needed to overcome them - PMC ) Ensuring diverse, representative data and ongoing bias audits of AI models is becoming an expected norm.
Transparency: Unlike a human doctor who can explain their reasoning, many AI algorithms (especially deep learning models) are “black boxes.” This opaqueness is problematic in healthcare. Both physicians and patients are calling for explainable AI – tools should ideally provide understandable reasons for their recommendations. Indeed, nearly 90% of doctors insist on knowing how an AI reached its output before using it (AI in healthcare statistics: 62 findings from 18 research reports) Regulatory guidelines, such as the EU’s draft AI Act, include transparency requirements so that AI decisions can be audited and understood (Collaborative Research Addresses Safe and Responsible Use of AI in European Healthcare)
Accountability and safety: If an AI makes a mistake, who is responsible? This question is being grappled with by legal systems. Healthcare AI failures can have serious consequences (e.g., a missed cancer on a scan or a faulty dosage recommendation), so strong validation and oversight are critical. Governments are beginning to require rigorous clinical trials for high-risk AI tools, similar to drug trials. For instance, the European Union’s proposed AI Act will classify most medical AI systems as “high risk,” subjecting them to strict compliance standards on accuracy, robustness, and human oversight before they can be deployed (Collaborative Research Addresses Safe and Responsible Use of AI in European Healthcare) (Collaborative Research Addresses Safe and Responsible Use of AI in European Healthcare) Likewise, the U.S. FDA now reviews AI/ML-based medical devices for safety and efficacy; by October 2023 it had authorized 692 AI-enabled devices for market (the majority in radiology) ( FDA publishes list of AI-enabled medical devices | UW Radiology ) No generative AI medical devices have been approved yet, reflecting caution in newer AI areas ( FDA publishes list of AI-enabled medical devices | UW Radiology ) But the regulatory trend is clear: AI must be proven at least as safe as existing practice before it is widely used in patient care.
Privacy: AI thrives on data, but patient health data is highly sensitive. Ethical use of AI demands compliance with privacy laws (like HIPAA in the US or GDPR in Europe). Innovative technical solutions are being explored, such as federated learning (AI models learn from data across hospitals without raw data leaving secure servers) to balance data sharing with confidentiality. In Ireland and the EU, initiatives like the forthcoming European Health Data Space aim to create a governed ecosystem where health data can be safely pooled for AI research, under strong privacy protections (Collaborative Research Addresses Safe and Responsible Use of AI in European Healthcare) (Collaborative Research Addresses Safe and Responsible Use of AI in European Healthcare) Still, public anxiety is evident: 80% of Americans said they’d be concerned if their provider used AI without clear information on its source and validation, though that concern drops to ~60% if the AI is known to come from a trusted medical source and is kept updated by clinicians (AI in healthcare statistics: 62 findings from 18 research reports) Transparent data governance will be key to maintaining public trust as AI systems learn from patient information.
Regulators and professional societies are also developing ethical guidelines to steer AI development. The EU’s High-Level Expert Group on AI published Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI outlining 7 requirements (including human agency, transparency, non-discrimination, and accountability) that any AI system should meet (Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI | Shaping Europe's digital future) The World Health Organization issued principles for AI in health, emphasizing human oversight and inclusivity. Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE) is beginning to consider these issues too; for example, a Science Foundation Ireland collaboration is looking at “health data sandboxes” and compliance tools to align AI innovations with the coming EU regulations (Collaborative Research Addresses Safe and Responsible Use of AI in European Healthcare) (Collaborative Research Addresses Safe and Responsible Use of AI in European Healthcare) Hospitals and providers are encouraged to establish AI ethics boards or policies. In fact, consultancies note that every healthcare provider implementing AI needs an ethics policy to guide how algorithms are chosen, validated, monitored, and used by staff (Why healthcare providers need a policy on AI ethics - Pinsent Masons)
Challenges in implementation: Despite these efforts, gaps remain between policy and practice. Some ethical guidelines (like ensuring an AI is “explainable”) are easier said than done due to technical limitations. There is also the risk of regulatory lag – AI tech moves fast, and laws or approval processes can struggle to keep up. Healthcare systems must navigate how to update liability laws, malpractice standards, and insurance coverage in the era of AI. Additionally, overly strict or unclear regulations could slow beneficial AI adoption (a concern in competitive global markets). Policymakers thus face a balancing act: protecting patients and mitigating risks without stifling innovation that could save lives. Ongoing multi-stakeholder dialogue – involving clinicians, AI developers, ethicists, patients, and regulators – is helping to refine these rules. The trajectory suggests that robust governance structures will envelop medical AI (from pre-market assessment to post-market surveillance of AI performance), making it a well-regulated medical technology domain in the near future. This maturing oversight will in turn help address the trust issues noted above, by reassuring both doctors and patients that AI tools meet high standards for safety, fairness, and efficacy.
While the prospects for AI in healthcare are exciting, it’s critical to recognize what AI cannot do (yet) and where humans excel. Current AI systems, for all their computational brilliance, have notable limitations that make human oversight and collaboration indispensable.
1. Clinical reasoning vs. common sense: AI can analyze patterns in vast data better than any person, but it lacks true understanding or common sense. A doctor might notice a patient’s odd hesitation or social situation that doesn’t fit the textbook symptoms – an insight an algorithm could miss if it’s not encoded in data. AI often struggles with unusual or complex cases that fall outside its training. For example, an AI might correctly flag common pneumonia on a chest X-ray, but a rare combination of findings that hint at a zebra (rare disease) could confuse it. In a Stanford study, even when AI out-diagnosed doctors on average, it was noted that humans sometimes caught nuances the AI missed, and conversely the AI sometimes “hallucinated” explanations that sounded logical but were irrelevant (AI Outperforms AI-Assisted Doctors in Diagnostic Reasoning) (How University of Utah Health physicians fell in love with AI) Human clinical judgment, honed by experience and real-world context, remains crucial for such subtleties.
2. Bias and errors: AI algorithms are only as good as the data and design behind them. If the training data contain biases or errors, the AI will likely perpetuate them. There have been instances of AI tools performing poorly for under-represented groups – for example, some dermatology AIs had trouble with diagnoses on darker skin types because they were trained mostly on light-skin images. Without careful checks, bias in AI can lead to erroneous or even dangerous recommendations ( Trust and medical AI: the challenges we face and the expertise needed to overcome them - PMC ) Additionally, AI can be prone to unexpected errors: a slight change in input (even an “adversarial” tweak a human wouldn’t notice) might lead to a completely wrong output ( Trust and medical AI: the challenges we face and the expertise needed to overcome them - PMC ) Humans are needed to sense-check AI outputs and catch when “something doesn’t look right.” Many hospitals implementing AI have found that a human-in-the-loop approach – where clinicians review and can override AI decisions – is necessary to maintain safety.
3. Interpersonal aspects of care: Perhaps the biggest limitation is that AI cannot replicate human empathy, communication, and the moral judgment needed in healthcare. Delivering a serious diagnosis, comforting a worried family, or understanding a patient’s personal values when discussing treatment options – these are deeply human tasks. An AI may analyze speech or sentiment, but it doesn’t truly empathize or build trust in the way a caring provider does. Patients consistently say they value the warmth and understanding of human clinicians. Even highly automated services realize this; for example, telehealth kiosks still rely on human doctors at the other end for consultations, in part because patients want a real person involved ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC ) Studies confirm that while many routine interactions might be automated, patients desire a human touch for sensitive health matters. This is why the prevailing view is that AI should augment rather than replace the healthcare workforce – a sentiment echoed by the AMA and others in emphasizing AI as an assistive “team member” rather than an independent clinician (How health AI can be a physician’s “co-pilot” to improve care | American Medical Association)
4. Complex and integrative decision-making: Medicine often involves synthesizing disparate information – lab results, patient preferences, physical exam findings, socioeconomic factors – to arrive at a plan. AI can crunch numbers and maybe even draft options, but we rely on human experts to weigh trade-offs and ethical considerations. For instance, an AI might recommend a certain surgery as statistically optimal, but a doctor will know the patient’s frail condition and lack of caregiver support at home make that choice less ideal; instead a different management plan is made. These kinds of holistic judgments are an area where human clinicians remain superior. In fact, University of Utah’s trials found their AI note-taking tool performed poorly for behavioral health visits – those conversations are nuanced and lengthy in ways that current AI struggled to handle, so human clinicians had to fill the gap (How University of Utah Health physicians fell in love with AI) This highlights that human-AI collaboration is optimal: AI may handle the straightforward parts (e.g. transcribing the dialogue), but the clinician must interpret and guide the complex therapy discussion.
Given these limitations, experts advocate a model of human-AI synergy. AI is extremely good at certain narrow tasks – scanning thousands of images for a faint tumor, reviewing literature for relevant research, monitoring vital signs continuously for anomalies – and using it for these can reduce errors and workload (remember, humans also make mistakes and have biases (How health AI can be a physician’s “co-pilot” to improve care | American Medical Association) . Meanwhile, people are better at the “big picture” thinking, empathy, ethical reasoning, and creative problem-solving. When each focuses on their strengths, outcomes improve. For example, in radiology, AI can pre-screen images and highlight likely problems, but the radiologist reviews those and makes the final call, combining AI input with their expertise. In primary care, an AI assistant might draft the after-visit summary and even flag any care gaps, while the physician focuses on listening to the patient and making nuanced decisions – the end result is hopefully more thorough and personalized care than either could deliver alone.
In summary, AI’s future in healthcare is as a powerful partner, not a replacement. The technology’s current limitations mean that sidelining human expertise is neither wise nor safe. Instead, the best outcomes are seen when clinicians leverage AI for what it does best and double-down on the human elements of care that machines can’t provide. This complementary approach is echoed in many policy frameworks calling AI a “team sport” in medicine (How health AI can be a physician’s “co-pilot” to improve care | American Medical Association) As one physician leader put it: “the real question is not whether the tool is perfect, but whether using the tool makes us better than we were without it.” (How health AI can be a physician’s “co-pilot” to improve care | American Medical Association) For now, the evidence suggests that when thoughtfully implemented, AI does make healthcare better – improving accuracy, efficiency, and access – but the guiding hand of human professionals remains essential to achieve the best outcomes.
All of the above evidence and trends support the user’s future vision of an AI-augmented healthcare system. Globally, we are already seeing the early parallels of that vision: doctors working with AI co-pilots to reduce burnout and catch diagnostic misses, patients getting basic care from AI-enabled kiosks in pharmacies or remote villages, and hospitals using AI to speed up emergency triage, scan interpretation, and treatment logistics. The progress is fueled by promising results – from higher cancer detection rates in AI-supported screenings (THE LANCET ONCOLOGY: First randomised trial f | EurekAlert!) to faster stroke treatments and time savings for clinicians (How University of Utah Health physicians fell in love with AI) At the same time, the challenges being encountered now (like building trust, setting ethical guardrails, and appreciating AI’s limits) are defining how this future will unfold responsibly. Regulators in Europe, the U.S., and countries like Ireland are laying down frameworks that emphasize safety, transparency, and efficacy in AI tools, which will help ensure these technologies truly benefit patients (Collaborative Research Addresses Safe and Responsible Use of AI in European Healthcare) ( FDA publishes list of AI-enabled medical devices | UW Radiology ) Public and professional acceptance will grow as early successes accumulate and robust oversight addresses the valid concerns about privacy and errors.
In essence, the healthcare of tomorrow will not be AI or human – it will be AI and human, working together. The statistics and case studies gathered from around the world already illustrate a trajectory where AI alleviates routine burdens, extends care to more people, and provides clinicians with supercharged diagnostic insights. Ireland, while currently cautious, stands to gain from these global advances by adapting what works elsewhere to its health system (for example, using AI to shorten waiting lists or assist its limited specialist workforce (How AI Could Save Ireland Billions and Slash Healthcare Waiting Lists) . Achieving the envisioned future will require continued investment, education, and ethical vigilance, but the evidence so far suggests that the destination – a smarter, more efficient, and more accessible healthcare system – is well within reach. The hypothetical scenarios described by the user are increasingly realistic as each year brings new validated AI tools and growing comfort in their use. With careful implementation, AI-driven co-pilots, kiosks, and workflow aids are on track to become as commonplace and trusted as stethoscopes and blood tests, fundamentally supporting and improving healthcare for providers and patients alike.
Sources:
Lubell, J. AMA: How health AI can be a physician’s “co-pilot”. American Medical Association (2023) (How health AI can be a physician’s “co-pilot” to improve care | American Medical Association) (How health AI can be a physician’s “co-pilot” to improve care | American Medical Association)
Becker’s Hospital Review. University of Utah Health physicians on using an AI co-pilot (Nuance DAX) (2023) (How University of Utah Health physicians fell in love with AI) (How University of Utah Health physicians fell in love with AI) (How University of Utah Health physicians fell in love with AI) (How University of Utah Health physicians fell in love with AI)
Stanford University – JAMA Network Open. Study of GPT-4 vs Physicians in diagnostic reasoning (2023) (AI Outperforms AI-Assisted Doctors in Diagnostic Reasoning) (AI Outperforms AI-Assisted Doctors in Diagnostic Reasoning) (AI Outperforms AI-Assisted Doctors in Diagnostic Reasoning)
AMA Physician Survey on AI (Aug 2023). Press release: Physicians enthusiastic but cautious about AI (AMA: Physicians enthusiastic but cautious about health care AI | American Medical Association) (AMA: Physicians enthusiastic but cautious about health care AI | American Medical Association)
Maramba et al. “The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review.” JMIR Med Informatics 2022 ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC ) ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC ) ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC ) ( The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review - PMC )
Economic Times (India). “Preventive healthcare in India gets a shot in arm with ‘Health ATMs’.” (May 17, 2023) (Preventive healthcare in India gets shot in arm with 'Health ATMs' - The Economic Times)
Wong et al. “AI in ED Triage: Scoping Review.” (2023) ( Use of Artificial Intelligence in Triage in Hospital Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review - PMC )
Corti AI – Emergency dispatch case: World Economic Forum / Nvidia blog (2019) (Startup Analyzes 911 Calls to Identify Cardiac Arrest Victims)
Stempniak, M. “64% would trust an AI’s diagnosis over a doctor’s”. Radiology Business (May 31, 2024) (Nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed say they’d trust a diagnosis from AI over a human doctor) (Nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed say they’d trust a diagnosis from AI over a human doctor) (Nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed say they’d trust a diagnosis from AI over a human doctor) (Nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed say they’d trust a diagnosis from AI over a human doctor)
Pew Research Center. “How Americans View AI in Health Care” (Feb 2023) (How Americans View Use of AI in Health Care and Medicine by Doctors and Other Providers | Pew Research Center) (How Americans View Use of AI in Health Care and Medicine by Doctors and Other Providers | Pew Research Center)
Ipsos MRBI Veracity Index (Ireland 2024). Public trust in professions and technology (Trust in Ireland's healthcare pros highest - Marketing.ie) (Trust in Ireland's healthcare pros highest - Marketing.ie)
Quinn et al. “Trust and Medical AI: Challenges and Expertise Needed.” JAMIA (2021) ( Trust and medical AI: the challenges we face and the expertise needed to overcome them - PMC )
Science Foundation Ireland – ADAPT. “Safe and Responsible AI in European Healthcare” (2023) (Collaborative Research Addresses Safe and Responsible Use of AI in European Healthcare) (Collaborative Research Addresses Safe and Responsible Use of AI in European Healthcare)
FDA Authorized AI/ML Devices List (Oct 2023) – UW Radiology summary ( FDA publishes list of AI-enabled medical devices | UW Radiology ) ( FDA publishes list of AI-enabled medical devices | UW Radiology )
Lång et al. “AI-supported mammography screening trial.” Lancet Oncology (2023) (THE LANCET ONCOLOGY: First randomised trial f | EurekAlert!) (THE LANCET ONCOLOGY: First randomised trial f | EurekAlert!)
Silicon Republic (Ireland). “Bringing tech to healthcare: Ireland has a lot of red tape.” (Oct 4, 2024) (Bringing tech to healthcare: Ireland has ‘a lot of red tape’) (Bringing tech to healthcare: Ireland has ‘a lot of red tape’)