Investigating the Impact of Automation on the Health Care Workforce Through Autonomous Telemedicine in the Cataract Pathway: Protocol for a Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While digital health innovations are increasingly being adopted by health care organizations, implementation is often carried out without considering the impacts on frontline staff who will be using the technology and who will be affected by its introduction. The enthusiasm surrounding the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled digital solutions in health care is tempered by uncertainty around how it will change the working lives and practices of health care professionals. Digital enablement can be viewed as facilitating enhanced effectiveness and efficiency by improving services and automating cognitive labor, yet the implementation of such AI technology comes with challenges related to changes in work practices brought by automation. This research explores staff experiences before and after care pathway automation with an autonomous clinical conversational assistant, Dora (Ufonia Ltd), that is able to automate routine clinical conversations. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to examine the impact of AI-enabled automation on clinicians, allied health professionals, and administrators who provide or facilitate health care to patients in high-volume, low-complexity care pathways. In the process of transforming care pathways through automation of routine tasks, staff will increasingly "work at the top of their license." The impact of this fundamental change on the professional identity, well-being, and work practices of the individual is poorly understood at present. METHODS: We will adopt a multiple case study approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, over 2 distinct phases, namely phase A (preimplementation) and phase B (postimplementation). RESULTS: The analysis is expected to reveal the interrelationship between Dora and those affected by its introduction. This will reveal how tasks and responsibilities have changed or shifted, current tensions and contradictions, ways of working, and challenges, benefits, and opportunities as perceived by those on the frontlines of the health care system. The findings will enable a better understanding of the resistance or susceptibility of different stakeholders within the health care workforce and encourage managerial awareness of differing needs, demands, and uncertainties. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of AI in the health care sector, as well as the body of research on this topic, remain in their infancy. The project's key contribution will be to understand the impact of AI-enabled automation on the health care workforce and their work practices. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/49374.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.076 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".