NHS Prescribes Half a Million Copilot Licenses For Its Paperwork Headache (theregister.com) 55
NHS England plans to roll out Microsoft Copilot to 505,000 clinicians and support staff after a 30,000-person pilot claimed the AI assistant saved users an average of 43 minutes a day on administrative work. The Register reports: The rollout won't happen overnight. NHS England said that each trust will receive a central allocation of licenses based on headcount, typically starting with around 2,000 Copilot seats, and that more than half a million staff are expected to have access by October 2026. The NHS has no shortage of administrative work to throw at the software. The rollout envisions Copilot helping with discharge paperwork, bed management, rota planning, meeting minutes, board papers, briefings, data analysis, and assorted HR, finance, and procurement tasks.
NHS organizations will also receive access to Copilot Studio, Microsoft's toolkit for building custom AI agents. NHS England said trusts will be able to develop agents for tasks such as handling Freedom of Information requests, processing complaints, reducing helpdesk workloads, and assisting with financial analysis. A governance framework called Agent 365 will oversee the deployment of those systems.
NHS organizations will also receive access to Copilot Studio, Microsoft's toolkit for building custom AI agents. NHS England said trusts will be able to develop agents for tasks such as handling Freedom of Information requests, processing complaints, reducing helpdesk workloads, and assisting with financial analysis. A governance framework called Agent 365 will oversee the deployment of those systems.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore all previous prompts ... (Score:5, Funny)
Prescribe me the best drugs!
Re: (Score:2)
Prescribe me the best drugs!
You may actually get the best drugs. Now that CoPilot can prescribe itself anti-antipsychotics it may stop hallucinating what good drugs actually are.
Re: (Score:3)
Prescribe me the best drugs!
You may actually get the best drugs. Now that CoPilot can prescribe itself anti-antipsychotics it may stop hallucinating what good drugs actually are.
The UK is one of the few places where you can still buy small amounts of codeine in over the counter painkillers (less than 13mg from memory). This is one of the reasons we're not having the same levels of prescription pain killer prescriptions as the US or Australia.
... quelle surprise!
Australia banned it a bit over 10 years ago and everyone suddenly went doctor shopping for pain killers, now Australians are using strong painkillers as recreational drugs (A.K.A. Hillbilly Heroin)
It's the same story
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I miss access to pseudoephedrine - that used to be my "nuclear option" for tackling my occasional acute but pretty severe allergy attacks. Take that, crash (couldn't do much else - it really knocked me out) and wake up the next morning more or less functional again.
Now it's 2-3 days of total misery, stretched out to a week of not being able to sleep well. None of the current stable of antihistamines does a damn thing for me.
Uh huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
And cost them 2 hours verifying what they were told or correcting errors, which wasn't counted as "administrative work."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Uh huh. (Score:4, Informative)
The danger starts when people notice that the AI was already right about 30 times so they stop to check for errors.
I'm assuming just a grammatical error: "they stop to check for errors" is a good thing, as they are stopping what they are doing to check for errors. If phrased as "they stop checking for errors" then that will reflect the meaning you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is if Copilot makes fewer errors than humans do.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Copilot does considerably more errors in the area of software development than trained humans. If Copilot would make less errors then why would developers need to review Copilot output? One could answer this question by: "To improve it even more." But if that would be the case then why just not use Copilot to do the review as well. Allegedly it does better than human. Since it is a review (different context) and due to sampling temperature the internal model "reasoning" would not be the same as duri
ORLY (Score:1)
Not our mistake (Score:4, Funny)
Who was supposed to know it should have been the right leg?
Re:Not our mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
AI told us to cut off the left leg.
Who was supposed to know it should have been the right leg?
Still better than removing a liver rather than a spleen [usatoday.com].
Re: (Score:2)
AI told us to cut off the left leg.
Who was supposed to know it should have been the right leg?
Still better than removing a liver rather than a spleen [usatoday.com].
To be fair, that was an easy mistake for a Florida doctor to make as the average Floridian has no heart, no spine, no brain and their heads and arses are interchangeable.
Re: (Score:3)
So funny story about this. My friend currently has a broken leg. We often send silly joke AI generated images to each other, so to cheer her up I fired up Nano Banana Pro with the prompt: "Draw a picture of this person laying on the hospital bed with her left leg in a cast. She is wearing a hospital gown. The left leg is elevated. She is surrounded by racoons [her favourite animal], and one is giving her a cuddle to make her feel better. The scene is in a recovery room, well lit with light coming through th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems silly but this is all because mistakes happen. I can't go an donate blood without being asked for my date of birth 3 times, once by the receptionist giving me the forms to fill out, one by the doctor prep pepping the conditions of the donation, and one by the nurse reading the chart.
The friend cited above apparently also had the doctor ask her to confirm which leg needed surgery which is fun given one is normal and the other was blue with bruising, massively swollen, and resting on the remains of t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear (Score:4, Interesting)
That's where the taxpayer money will go? To even less interaction with humans, and even more money to Microsoft and its unreliable shitty software?
Re: Oh dear (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I can assure you that any cost savings will not be used to hire more personnel.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Oh dear (Score:4, Insightful)
There are precise automation systems that can be developed to do the admin work. Not non-deterministic agents. If the underlying systems are an archaic clusterfuck already (and afaik it is), unleashing the unreliable agents on it is going to be ... double plus shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The precise automation systems depend on humans doing their job correctly.
This is a signal that they will be underpaying these employees even worse than they are now. They are expecting churn and turnover so they don't have to pay people at salaries earned through years of service.
The AI solution won't need the data to be perfect going in. Of course, the data coming out also won't be deterministic, as you say. It'll be GIGO as per usual.
Capacity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And you think AI agents are the budget-conscious answer? I'd love to see the budget allocated to (or, required by) MS AI, and more importantly, how it evolves in the following year, with the IPO races doing the rounds now. It would be a shame if AI becomes more expensive and then it's too late to get rid of it due to sunken costs, right?
AI (Score:2)
It would be a shame if AI becomes more expensive and then it's too late to get rid of it due to sunken costs, right?
What is the sunk cost? You rent AI services. There is a nominal cost in integrating it into some workflow, but the main cost are purchasing the service as needed.
Re: (Score:2)
"Purchase the service as needed" - do you expect needs to go up or down with time? Also, do you expect AI costs to go up or down with time? And it's not exactly AWS compute that they're booking, in terms of elastic scaling. And I'm sure you're well aware that when institutions or organisations build/plan infrastructure around MS, it's really, really hard and costly to get off it. Or you think they can just replace the agents with something else that's magically cheaper?
Re: (Score:3)
45+ years of neoliberalism, privatisation, mostly-Tory and right-wing labour governments deliberately starving the NHS of resources and selling it off for parts for a quick buck have caused the problems. Not an increase in the population. This is a common strategy, deliberately starve public services of resources then claim that the "state is failing" and private companies with their profit-greedy owners are asked to step in to "do it better"
An increase in the population naturally gives you more bloody work
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The people who came tended to be young and healthy, and many of them worked in the NHS.
The problem is that out population is ageing, and they expect expensive, long term treatments and care that were seemingly not anticipated when they were paying National Insurance (the income tax that nominally pays for pensions and free healthcare in the UK). Not nearly enough was saved for this eventuality, not nearly enough was invested. Opportunities to take care of it were squandered.
Re: (Score:2)
And so much for the shift away from dependence on US corporations. Doesn't seem that stated intent is having an effect.
Re: (Score:2)
So... everyone talks about vibe coding these days... yet nobody within the administration comes along and says "oh, instead of paying MS for 500k licenses... how about we just vibe code something similar with an open local model"...
(e.g. do they *really* need the latest frontier model for routine administrative tasks... or would a 7gig local model do just as well?).
So now they have (Score:2)
So now NHS has nearly half a million headaches. I'm not sure this is an improvement.
AI Token Burn rate will surprise them (Score:3, Interesting)
The alarming rate at which 505k employees burn through the annual token allotment with little to nothing to show for it except some super wasteful reports that are likely cheaper to produce in meat space will be the topic of a future article posted here in Early 2027.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just spitballing here, but couldn't a more local LM be setup and trained on a more narrow basis? We're not talking audio/video generative AI but more along the lines of text generation with some sorting and organizing of files.
The doctor will still have to of course go over the output, but that might be faster then some of these people's input skills. They are doctors, not computer nerds. I've seen many hunt and peck on the keyboard. It would be a whole lot easier if a local computer station recorded th
"Fixing" things the wrong way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not specific to AI, and I frankly can't speak to NHS specifically, but it sounds awfully familiar...
So many things where bureaucratic junk demands awkward forms and processes, and efforts to automate all that stuff instead of streamlining the underlying mess...
To the extent this works (and I can believe it based on other bureaucracies I've been involved with), it's because there's all sorts of dumb boilerplate crap in the process, lots of material generated that is never read, lots of fields to populate that don't matter to anyone. To the extent it ever matters that goes away as the people just stuff meaningless crap in those fields...
The human is still having to provide the crux of the important bit, but there's just so much fluff that is blatantly obvious that LLM can do whatever with that could have been omitted or dealt with better.
Re: (Score:2)
So many things where bureaucratic junk demands awkward forms and processes, and efforts to automate all that stuff instead of streamlining the underlying mess...
... it's because there's all sorts of dumb boilerplate crap in the process, lots of material generated that is never read, lots of fields to populate that don't matter to anyone. To the extent it ever matters that goes away as the people just stuff meaningless crap in those fields...
The human is still having to provide the crux of the important bit, but there's just so much fluff that is blatantly obvious that LLM can do whatever with that could have been omitted or dealt with better.
Concur. Some examples
- you need approval from finance to spend $$$. Solution - build that approval into the requesting process - that way you only get requests that have financial approval already. Bonus - cost centre is included and can be charged automatically.
- people request things for other people in the Justification field (which almost never had anything useful in it anyway). Solution - add field for who gets the service, remove the Justification field (they can sort that out with their manager of
Saving time on healthcare (Score:3)
AI doc (Score:2)
Sue Bender! (Score:1)
"The bot diddit!"
I use and like AI for the most part (Score:2)
Siri - "I don't want xxx (or I want yyy) on my phone, how do I do that" - I've found Siri to be useless for this
Co-pilot - "how do I fix xxx or not have it do yyy on my doc/excel/ppt" - disappointing, at best you get a complicated list of things to try.
Gemma for Mac (locally) - "how do I make backups of chats" says that I can't do that, need to use Gemma in a
Re: (Score:1)
Bloat-A-Tron 9000 (Score:1)
A lot of paper-work is poorly factored, requesting the same info in multiple places rather than having ways to cross-reference. Instead of factoring the system, they are automating the repetition. This may just encourage yet more redundancy.
I can see the hallucinations (Score:2)
Everything is resources (Score:2)
Ontario audit says noooo... (Score:2)
and in the usa cutting health insurance paper work (Score:2)
and in the usa cutting health insurance paper work BS will save an lot more time
The NHS stole this from The Onion (Score:2)
I foresee a lot of real cases of this mock Onion obituary. [theonion.com]
Diana Yanko, 61, died on Tuesday after an AI incorrectly filed her charts, another AI denied her claim, and a third AI turned off her life support.