Let's imagine the possibilities and theoretically demo the results based on current knowledge:
-
yes AI made the process fast and the patient did not die unnecessarily.
-
same but the patient died well.
-
same but the patient died.
-
same as either 1, 2, or 3 but AI made things slower.
Demo:
Pharmacy: Patient requires amoxicillin for a painful infection of the ear while allergic to penicillin:
AI: Sure! You will find penicillin in Isle 23 box number 5.
Pharmacy: the patient needs amoxicillin actually.
AI: Sure! The Patient must have an allergic reaction to more commonly used anti inflammatory medications.
Pharmacy: actually amoxicillin is more of an antibiotic, where can I find it?
AI: Sure! While you are correct that amoxicillin is an antibiotic, it is a well studied result that after an infection inflammation is reduced. You can find the inflammation through out the body including the region where the infection is located.
Pharmacy: amoxicillin location!
AI: Sure! Amoxicillin was invented in Beecham Research Laboratories.
That's a noble goal but does adding more people help the (long-term only, please) effectiveness? At what point does it start hindering it?
I would assume that someone like a pharmacist has to be focused all the time, stakes is high..
Do we have precise data about how physiological state of a pharmacist is changing through the shift? Do we know whether or not the pauses between people -- which we might or might not have considered a wasted time -- are actually essential for their ability to stay focused and reliable? (Is the answer the same for all of them?) Or maybe they could actually still use part of that time in a productive way, right? Also, why is there lack of people in the first place?
Focusing solely on adding more people to the equation seems to neglect factors like this. This tells me that whoever this factoid is trying to impress is not someone who I would want to trust with managing a pharmacy (or anything except maybe some production line) in the first place.