When nurses are held accountable for AI-driven clinical decisions, they must be engaged early and meaningfully.

IF 4.1
Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2026-08-26 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxag218
Meghan Reading Turchioe, Ann Wieben, Carolyn Sun, Christina Baker, Benjamin J Galatzan
{"title":"When nurses are held accountable for AI-driven clinical decisions, they must be engaged early and meaningfully.","authors":"Meghan Reading Turchioe, Ann Wieben, Carolyn Sun, Christina Baker, Benjamin J Galatzan","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxag218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health systems are adopting AI-powered tools faster than policy can address the implications for clinician liability. Nurses, as the largest healthcare profession and the most proximal clinicians to patients, must decide whether to accept, modify, or override AI-derived recommendations, often while managing competing cognitive demands. Yet the question of who bears responsibility when AI contributes to patient harm remains unresolved in policy and case law. At the 2025 American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium, a structured debate examined whether nurses should be held liable for AI-assisted clinical decisions. Proponents argued that professional ethics, existing tort precedent, and the nurse's role as human-in-the-loop require accountability. Opponents countered that AI opacity, unfair liability distribution, and limited nurse agency in AI procurement preclude fair responsibility assignment. Two reforms are essential: meaningful nurse engagement throughout the AI lifecycle and nursing-specific considerations in AI legislation and regulatory frameworks.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"4 9","pages":"qxag218"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13591276/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health systems are adopting AI-powered tools faster than policy can address the implications for clinician liability. Nurses, as the largest healthcare profession and the most proximal clinicians to patients, must decide whether to accept, modify, or override AI-derived recommendations, often while managing competing cognitive demands. Yet the question of who bears responsibility when AI contributes to patient harm remains unresolved in policy and case law. At the 2025 American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium, a structured debate examined whether nurses should be held liable for AI-assisted clinical decisions. Proponents argued that professional ethics, existing tort precedent, and the nurse's role as human-in-the-loop require accountability. Opponents countered that AI opacity, unfair liability distribution, and limited nurse agency in AI procurement preclude fair responsibility assignment. Two reforms are essential: meaningful nurse engagement throughout the AI lifecycle and nursing-specific considerations in AI legislation and regulatory frameworks.

当护士对人工智能驱动的临床决策负责时,他们必须尽早和有意义地参与其中。
卫生系统采用人工智能工具的速度超过了政策解决对临床医生责任的影响的速度。护士作为最大的医疗保健专业人员和最接近患者的临床医生,必须决定是否接受、修改或推翻人工智能衍生的建议,通常还要同时管理相互竞争的认知需求。然而,当人工智能对患者造成伤害时,谁来承担责任的问题在政策和判例法中仍未得到解决。在2025年美国医学信息协会年度研讨会上,一场有组织的辩论探讨了护士是否应该对人工智能辅助的临床决策负责。支持者认为,职业道德、现有的侵权先例以及护士作为人在循环中的角色都需要问责制。反对者反驳说,人工智能的不透明、不公平的责任分配以及人工智能采购中有限的护士代理妨碍了公平的责任分配。两项改革至关重要:在人工智能整个生命周期中有意义的护士参与,以及人工智能立法和监管框架中对护理的具体考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书