The healthcare sector is seeing a rise in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve clinical efficiency. However, this transition is difficult because of a lack of institutional training and unsolved legal questions regarding professional liability.

醫療保健部門目前正見到人工智慧（AI）的使用增加，以提高臨床效率。然而，由於缺乏機構培訓以及關於專業責任的法律問題尚未解決，這一轉型過程十分困難。

The practical benefits of AI in clinics are shown in the Philips Future Health Index, a study of over 2,000 healthcare professionals and 20,000 patients across ten countries. The data show that AI leads to significant productivity gains; for example, 46% of professionals reported saving an average of 132 hours per year, and 50% noted they could see more patients. AI is used for everything from administrative tasks, such as scheduling, to clinical work, such as analyzing X-rays and identifying dangerous drug combinations. Furthermore, 27% of clinicians stated that AI helped them find medical errors at least three times in a three-month period.

Philips Future Health Index 一項針對十個國家超過 2,000 名醫療專業人員與 20,000 名患者的研究，顯示了 AI 在診所的實際效益。數據顯示 AI 帶來顯著的生產力提升；例如，46% 的專業人員表示每年平均節省 132 小時，而 50% 的人指出他們可以接診更多患者。AI 的用途涵蓋從行政工作（如排程）到臨床工作（如分析 X 光片與識別危險的藥物組合）。此外，27% 的臨床醫生表示，AI 在三個月內幫助他們發現了至少三次醫療錯誤。

Despite these benefits, there is a gap between how individuals use AI and how hospitals integrate it. About 70% of healthcare professionals described their organizational training as limited or unavailable. Consequently, 64% of clinicians use their own personal AI tools to make up for this lack of support. Because of this, there is a strong agreement that human oversight is necessary, with 90% of professionals asserting that human involvement remains essential and 86% emphasizing that all AI results must be verified by a person.

儘管有這些效益，個人使用 AI 與醫院整合 AI 之間仍存在差距。約 70% 的醫療專業人員描述其組織培訓有限或無法獲得。因此，64% 的臨床醫生使用個人 AI 工具以彌補缺乏支援的問題。正因如此，各方強烈認同人類監督之必要性，90% 的專業人員堅稱人類參與仍至關重要，且 86% 強調所有 AI 結果必須經由人員驗證。

At the same time, a serious legal gap has appeared in the United Kingdom. The Medical Protection Society (MPS) has argued that under current laws, doctors and the NHS may be held solely responsible for patient harm caused by AI errors. To reduce this risk, the MPS suggests that AI systems should be classified as 'products' under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This change would shift the legal responsibility toward the developers and manufacturers. In response, the Department of Health and Social Care has stated that NHS Resolution is currently creating guidelines to address these concerns.

與此同時，英國出現了嚴重的法律漏洞。醫療保護協會（MPS）主張，根據現行法律，醫生與 NHS 可能須為 AI 錯誤導致的患者傷害承擔全部責任。為了降低此風險，MPS 建議將 AI 系統在《1987 年消費者保護法》下歸類為「產品」。此舉將把法律責任轉移至開發商與製造商。對此，衛生及社會關懷部表示，NHS Resolution 目前正在制定指南以解決這些疑慮。

While AI offers clear improvements in productivity and diagnostic accuracy, its full use is limited by a lack of structured training and a legal system that currently blames the practitioner for technological errors.

雖然 AI 在生產力與診斷準確度方面提供了明顯提升，但其全面應用受限於缺乏結構化培訓，以及目前的法律體系將技術錯誤歸咎於從業人員。