Neonatal nurses' experiences with generative AI in clinical decision-making: a qualitative exploration in high-risk nicus.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Abeer Nuwayfi Alruwaili, Afrah Madyan Alshammari, Ali Alhaiti, Nadia Bassuoni Elsharkawy, Sayed Ibrahim Ali, Osama Mohamed Elsayed Ramadan
{"title":"Neonatal nurses' experiences with generative AI in clinical decision-making: a qualitative exploration in high-risk nicus.","authors":"Abeer Nuwayfi Alruwaili, Afrah Madyan Alshammari, Ali Alhaiti, Nadia Bassuoni Elsharkawy, Sayed Ibrahim Ali, Osama Mohamed Elsayed Ramadan","doi":"10.1186/s12912-025-03044-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neonatal nurses in high-risk Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) navigate complex, time-sensitive clinical decisions where accuracy and judgment are critical. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a supportive tool, yet its integration raises concerns about its impact on nurses' decision-making, professional autonomy, and organizational workflows.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study explored how neonatal nurses experience and integrate generative AI in clinical decision-making, examining its influence on nursing practice, organizational dynamics, and cultural adaptation in Saudi Arabian NICUs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An interpretive phenomenological approach, guided by Complexity Science, Normalization Process Theory, and Tanner's Clinical Judgment Model, was employed. A purposive sample of 33 neonatal nurses participated in semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to code and interpret data, supported by an inter-rater reliability of 0.88. Simple frequency counts were included to illustrate the prevalence of themes but were not used as quantitative measures. Trustworthiness was ensured through reflexive journaling, peer debriefing, and member checking.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five themes emerged: (1) Clinical Decision-Making, where 93.9% of nurses reported that AI-enhanced judgment but required human validation; (2) Professional Practice Transformation, with 84.8% noting evolving role boundaries and workflow changes; (3) Organizational Factors, as 97.0% emphasized the necessity of infrastructure, training, and policy integration; (4) Cultural Influences, with 87.9% highlighting AI's alignment with family-centered care; and (5) Implementation Challenges, where 90.9% identified technical barriers and adaptation strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Generative AI can support neonatal nurses in clinical decision-making, but its effectiveness depends on structured training, reliable infrastructure, and culturally sensitive implementation. These findings provide evidence-based insights for policymakers and healthcare leaders to ensure AI integration enhances nursing expertise while maintaining safe, patient-centered care.</p>","PeriodicalId":48580,"journal":{"name":"BMC Nursing","volume":"24 1","pages":"386"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03044-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Neonatal nurses in high-risk Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) navigate complex, time-sensitive clinical decisions where accuracy and judgment are critical. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a supportive tool, yet its integration raises concerns about its impact on nurses' decision-making, professional autonomy, and organizational workflows.

Aim: This study explored how neonatal nurses experience and integrate generative AI in clinical decision-making, examining its influence on nursing practice, organizational dynamics, and cultural adaptation in Saudi Arabian NICUs.

Methods: An interpretive phenomenological approach, guided by Complexity Science, Normalization Process Theory, and Tanner's Clinical Judgment Model, was employed. A purposive sample of 33 neonatal nurses participated in semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to code and interpret data, supported by an inter-rater reliability of 0.88. Simple frequency counts were included to illustrate the prevalence of themes but were not used as quantitative measures. Trustworthiness was ensured through reflexive journaling, peer debriefing, and member checking.

Results: Five themes emerged: (1) Clinical Decision-Making, where 93.9% of nurses reported that AI-enhanced judgment but required human validation; (2) Professional Practice Transformation, with 84.8% noting evolving role boundaries and workflow changes; (3) Organizational Factors, as 97.0% emphasized the necessity of infrastructure, training, and policy integration; (4) Cultural Influences, with 87.9% highlighting AI's alignment with family-centered care; and (5) Implementation Challenges, where 90.9% identified technical barriers and adaptation strategies.

Conclusions: Generative AI can support neonatal nurses in clinical decision-making, but its effectiveness depends on structured training, reliable infrastructure, and culturally sensitive implementation. These findings provide evidence-based insights for policymakers and healthcare leaders to ensure AI integration enhances nursing expertise while maintaining safe, patient-centered care.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Nursing
BMC Nursing Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
317
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Nursing is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of nursing research, training, education and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信