Scientific and investigative issuesĪs a field investigator, you must have the appropriate scientific knowledge, supplies, and equipment to carry out the investigation before departing for the field. Good preparation in both categories is needed to facilitate a smooth field experience. The preparations can be grouped into two broad categories: (a) scientific and investigative issues, and (b) management and operational issues. Regardless of when the decision to conduct a field investigation is made, you should be well prepared before leaving for the field. Sometimes investigators collect enough information to perform descriptive epidemiology without leaving their desks, and decide that a field investigation is necessary only if they cannot reach a convincing conclusion without one. More commonly, officials discover an increase in the number of cases of a particular disease and then decide that a field investigation is warranted. Only occasionally do public health officials decide to conduct a field investigation before confirming an increase in cases and verifying the diagnosis. The numbering scheme for this step is problematic, because preparing for field work often is not the first step. Conceptually, control measures come after hypotheses have been confirmed, but in practice control measures are usually implemented as soon as the source and mode of transmission are known, which may be early or late in any particular outbreak investigation.Įach of the steps is described below in more detail, based on the assumption that you are the health department staff member scheduled to conduct the next field investigation. For example, the order of the first three listed steps is highly variable - a health department often verifies the diagnosis and establishes the existence of an outbreak before deciding that a field investigation is warranted. Doctors-whom studies have shown would need to work 27 hours a day to deliver the recommended standard of care-do not.Ī more revealing test would pit ChatGPT against a doctor who’s had 40% of her non-patient-facing workload relieved by AI and then see whose patient interactions are deemed more empathetic.The steps listed in Table 6.2 are presented in conceptual order in practice, however, several steps may be done at the same time, or the circumstances of the outbreak may dictate that a different order be followed. The study purporting to show that ChatGPT displays more empathy than the average doctor is flawed because ChatGPT, with its infinite capacity to produce text almost instantaneously, has unlimited time. The way I see it, #AI can dramatically reduce the cognitive burden required to become and remain competent, freeing up doctors to focus on being more human with their patients. Traditionally, doctors have been asked to ingest and store massive quantities of medical knowledge (i.e., display competence) and then use it to make the right decisions for the complex, highly individual patient who’s in the room with them at any given moment (i.e., display compassion). The viral study suggesting #ChatGPT may display more empathy than human #doctors in responding to #patient questions got me thinking: What makes a first-rate doctor, and how can #AI (generative or otherwise) complement and reinforce the work of human doctors?Īccording to my physician friends, the best doctors possess two things in equal measure: competence and compassion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |