The pattern I would add is to treat the tool's answer as a workflow input, not a decision endpoint. In OR-adjacent work, the useful habit is asking what source the system used, what uncertainty remains, and which human owns the next action before the output changes care or documentation.
"...what uncertainty remains"... that's the part that gives me concern. I think of my colleagues asking questions they do not already know the answer to (otherwise, why ask?). How do they fact-check the AI response? Are they going to open each citation, review the articles, verify guidelines, and applicability to their patient? AI is billed as a time saver and efficiency improver. None of them are going to take the time to do this and lose the efficiency. They will assume the answer is correct, which is going to lead to some real patient harm at some point.
The pattern I would add is to treat the tool's answer as a workflow input, not a decision endpoint. In OR-adjacent work, the useful habit is asking what source the system used, what uncertainty remains, and which human owns the next action before the output changes care or documentation.
"...what uncertainty remains"... that's the part that gives me concern. I think of my colleagues asking questions they do not already know the answer to (otherwise, why ask?). How do they fact-check the AI response? Are they going to open each citation, review the articles, verify guidelines, and applicability to their patient? AI is billed as a time saver and efficiency improver. None of them are going to take the time to do this and lose the efficiency. They will assume the answer is correct, which is going to lead to some real patient harm at some point.