This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

GPs buried under trusts' workload dump

Artificial intelligence blunts any residual patient intelligence

Editor’s blog

Patient self-care is a wonderful concept in theory. Instead of seeing a GP or other health professionals, patients will be encouraged to take care of themselves where possible, alleviating the burden on the NHS.

Helping the drive towards self-care is artificial intelligence. In some cases, it does help; for example, allowing patients to manage certain chronic conditions.

Yet this is only a small part of the proliferation of AI. It’s most visible in ‘symptoms checkers’, which offer patients their own personal triage without the need for human interaction.

Again in theory, this seems like it could relieve pressure on GPs; patients who would have attended surgery can be reassured by a symptoms checker.

But (and I realise this won’t come as much of a shock), the reality is very different. Justified fears over missing a diagnosis mean the algorithms used are naturally risk averse, as our investigation shows. Pretty much every medical scenario we concocted to test the apps ended up with a suggested visit to the GP, normally an urgent one, or even to A&E/999. (One of the few that didn’t was, worryingly, a case of acute pyelonephritis.)

It’s unlikely, therefore, that AI as it stands will reduce workload on GPs or the wider NHS. In fact, I suggest it could increase demand.

What these apps are doing, not least the NHS App itself, is removing the need for patients to exercise common sense and their innate self-care

Because what these apps are doing, not least the NHS App itself, is removing the need for patients to exercise common sense and their innate self-care. It’s part of a long-running trend of infantilising patients that has included campaigns encouraging them to see their pharmacist if they have a cold or phone 111 if they feel under the weather. These apps just make this abdication of responsibility even easier – now, validated advice is in the palm of your hand.

The fact that these apps are devised by experts means patients understandably feel they have a right to the medical attention they suggest, whether it be an urgent GP appointment or calling 999. And, by the time they see a real clinician, their anxiety levels have been raised – possibly for no reason.

Before this infantilisation, patients tended to be pretty good at assessing whether and how soon they needed to see a doctor. And there was an element of taking responsibility for their judgement – a sheepish ‘sorry to bother you doc’ element, that is absent when they have screenshot proof of their urgent need.

Of course, there have always been patients who demand antibiotics or who attend inappropriately on a regular basis – and at the other end of the scale, patients who don’t come in when they really should.

But, let’s face it, these symptoms checkers are unlikely to change their behaviour. So it is hard to see exactly where their benefit lies.

Jaimie Kaffash is editor of Pulse. Follow him on Twitter @jkaffash or email him at editor@pulsetoday.co.uk

Rate this article  (5 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (5)

  • Totally agree Jaime - the likelihood is and evidence is beginning to show that there is a paradox with AI: in that is actually increases patient demand and anxiety as the algorithms cannot capture information that human consciousness can. No robot will ever be substitute for human consciousness in a consultation. True self care is patient empowerment and education and not dependence on AI and health apps. Thank you for your comments.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The secondary problem is then how patients view the subsequent GP advice if it contradicts the AI advice. Does it undermine trust in professionals? Lead to more complaints? I suspect it does.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If only the health minister has insight like these we would do well.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well done to Pulse for instigating some much-needed field testing - responding to concerns of clinicians and others.

    NHSE have signally failed to do so.

    Facts on the ground do not support current NHSE/DHSC policy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Medicine on the cheap again.
    Then again it won't be cheap if it ends up generating more GP appointments. Then again we won't get paid for the extra appointments generated so yes, it is cheap for the DOH, while being a crowd-pleaser for patients!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say