科技將取代醫生80%的工作？

????目前許多靠醫生來完成的工作，比如檢查、試驗、診斷、開方、行為矯正等，將來都可以用傳感器、主/被動數據收集及分析等技術來實現，甚至它們可以比人類醫生完成得更好。但這不是說醫生就可以高枕無憂了，醫生需要綜合利用所有數據，結合最近在診療中發現的問題和患者的病史，找出患者的癥結所在。許多診斷和開方的工作可以由電腦來完成，甚至有可能電腦會比一般的醫生做得更好——尤其是電腦會考慮更多的選擇，而且犯的錯誤也比人類醫生少。大多數醫生都不可能全部讀完最近5,000篇關于心臟病的研究文章，更談不上消化理解了。而大多數醫生的醫療知識都是從醫學院學來的，同時受于人類認知的限制，一般的醫生也不可能全部記得10,000多種人類可能患上的疾病和療法。

????相比之下，電腦更擅長組織和回憶復雜信息，這一點連哈佛醫學院畢業的頂尖醫生也比不上。電腦也比一般的醫生更擅長整合并均衡考慮病人的癥狀、病史、行為、環境因素，以及群體管理等問題。另外，別忘了還有50%的醫生的醫術在平均水平線以下！此外，電腦的另一個優點就是出錯率要比人類低得多。難道我們不應該把這個優點用于我們的健康問題上嗎？

????科技可補人力之不足，同時強化我們的力量，解放醫生以及醫護人員的雙手，讓他們做更多的事情。最終，電腦可以取代醫生80%的工作，同時增強他們的醫術水平。Lifecom公司的數據顯示，醫生助理們在使用了診斷知識引擎后，在不使用實驗室、不做造影、不做檢查的情況下，他們的診斷也有91%是準確的。Lifecom公司的另一項臨床數據表明，在診斷知識引擎的幫助下，75%的病例可以安全地交給護士進行診療，剩下的25%才需要動用醫生。MassGen公司的一項研究發現，25%的情況下，被醫生給出“高風險診斷”的病人，在醫生最終做出診斷之前，都有“大信息量的臨床表現”——換句話說，就是出現了明顯的拖延。而如果醫生使用了臨床決策支持系統來分析各種檢查結果的話，這種拖延是可以避免的！

????新技術能讓善于接受新事物的醫生更好、更快，而且更擅于在事實基礎上完成工作。如今海量的數據中隱藏著一個前所未有的巨大機會。一旦我們有了足夠大的數據基礎，一個可訪問的醫學研究數據庫，我們就能以前所未有的方式，鑒定病情和病人的生理反應。

????隨著時間的推移，醫生將會越來越依賴科技來進行分診、診斷和決策。最終，我們需要的醫生數量會變得更少，而每個患者都會享受最好的醫療服務。診斷和治療計劃將會由電腦來完成，同時選擇更加擅于護理（而不是診斷能力）的醫護人員為患者提供人文關懷。我們再也不需要豪斯醫生那樣壞脾氣的診斷天才與病人進行直接接觸，而是讓“電腦醫生”來提供診斷，同時讓最擅長人文關懷的醫護人員照顧病人。

Replacing 80% of what doctors do?

????Much of what physicians do (checkups, testing, diagnosis, prescription, behavior modification, etc.) can be done better by sensors, passive and active data collection, and analytics. But, doctors aren't supposed to just measure. They're supposed to consume all that data, consider it in context of the latest medical findings and the patient's history, and figure out if something's wrong. Computers can take on much of that diagnosis and treatment and even do these functions better than the average doctor (while considering more options and making fewer errors). Most doctors couldn't possibly read and digest all of the latest 5,000 research articles on heart disease. And, most of the average doctor's medical knowledge is from when they were in medical school, while cognitive limitations prevent them from remembering the 10,000+ diseases humans can get.

????Computers are better at organizing and recalling complex information than a hotshot Harvard MD. They're also better at integrating and balancing considerations of patient symptoms, history, demeanor, environmental factors, and population management guidelines than the average physician. Besides, 50% of MDs are below average! Computers also have much lower error rates. Shouldn't we take advantage of that when it comes to our health?!

????Technology compensates for human deficiencies and amplifies our strengths – MDs and less-trained medical professionals can do more. Eventually, computers?will?replace 80% of what doctors do and amplify their capabilities. Lifecom showed in clinical trials that medical assistants using a diagnostic knowledge engine were 91% accurate?without using labs, imaging, or exams. Another clinical study by the same company demonstrated that 75% of cases can be safely triaged to be treated by RNs, with the remainder handled by doctors. A MassGen?study?found that 25% of the time, a medical record for patients who wound up with 'high risk diagnoses' had 'high information clinical findings' before a physician finally made the diagnosis — in other words, there was a significant delay that might have been avoided had a clinical decision support system been used to parse the notes!

????New technologies will make the receptive doctors better at their jobs – quicker, more accurate, and more fact-based. There is a tremendous opportunity in the influx of data that has never before been available. Once we have a large enough dataset, and an addressable database of research studies, we'll be able to identify patterns and physiological interactions in ways that weren't possible before.

????Over time, doctors will increase their reliance on technology for triage, diagnosis, and decision-making. Eventually, we'll need fewer doctors, and every patient will receive the best care. Diagnosis and treatment planning will be done by a computer, used in concert with empathetic support from medical personnel selected more for their caring personalities than for their diagnostic abilities. No brilliant diagnostician with bad manners, a la "Dr. House," will be needed in direct patient contact. Instead, we'll use "Dr. Algorithm" to provide the diagnosis, while the most humane humans provide the care.