Nurses’ Experiences Using AI in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used in clinical settings, yet most syntheses focus on nurses' attitudes or readiness rather than experiences after direct use in practice. Objective: This study aimed to synthesize registered nurses' experiences of using AI in clinical practice and to identify perceived benefits, barriers, and implementation implications. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of empirical studies reporting nurses' experiences of AI use in clinical settings. Searches were performed in CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed (last search: September 13, 2023). Moreover, 2 reviewers (AJSS and QZ) independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts and appraised included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used thematic synthesis with a primarily deductive framework based on the Technology Acceptance Model 2, with the addition of facilitating conditions from the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Results: In total, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. Perceived usefulness and facilitating conditions were most frequently reported; nurses described AI as supporting decision-making, workflow efficiency, and confidence when implementation included adequate training, interoperability, and technical infrastructure. Ease of use was closely tied to interface design and training. Job relevance and output quality were rated more positively when nurses described AI as aligning with nursing tasks and as producing interpretable, reliable outputs. Common barriers included usability issues, limited integration into workflows and electronic systems, privacy and trust concerns, and inconsistent or poorly contextualized outputs. Across studies, nurses often described adoption as conditional on organizational readiness and meaningful involvement of nurses in design and implementation. Conclusions: Nurses' accounts suggest that AI may augment clinical work, but the perceived benefits reported in the included literature were contingent on workflow alignment, usable interfaces, training, and supportive infrastructure. These findings suggest potential value in involving nurses in the co-design and iterative refinement of AI tools, grounded in the consistent evidence that facilitating conditions, such as training, interoperability, and organizational readiness, are the primary determinants of whether AI is experienced positively. Prospective evaluation using nursing-relevant outcomes, such as usability, workflow integration, and trust, is needed to move beyond post hoc experiential accounts and establish what implementation conditions reliably produce benefit.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JMIR Nursing
Published
2026-06-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/91238
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Nurses’ Experiences Using AI in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review

Ashley Scott, Benjamin Brown, Qimeng Zhao, Dawn Dowding et al.
JMIR Nursing
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Nurses’ Experiences Using AI in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review

Ashley Scott, Benjamin Brown, Qimeng Zhao, Dawn Dowding, Jo‐Fan Pan
article en

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used in clinical settings, yet most syntheses focus on nurses' attitudes or readiness rather than experiences after direct use in practice. Objective: This study aimed to synthesize registered nurses' experiences of using AI in clinical practice and to identify perceived benefits, barriers, and implementation implications. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of empirical studies reporting nurses' experiences of AI use in clinical settings. Searches were performed in CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed (last search: September 13, 2023). Moreover, 2 reviewers (AJSS and QZ) independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts and appraised included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used thematic synthesis with a primarily deductive framework based on the Technology Acceptance Model 2, with the addition of facilitating conditions from the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Results: In total, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. Perceived usefulness and facilitating conditions were most frequently reported; nurses described AI as supporting decision-making, workflow efficiency, and confidence when implementation included adequate training, interoperability, and technical infrastructure. Ease of use was closely tied to interface design and training. Job relevance and output quality were rated more positively when nurses described AI as aligning with nursing tasks and as producing interpretable, reliable outputs. Common barriers included usability issues, limited integration into workflows and electronic systems, privacy and trust concerns, and inconsistent or poorly contextualized outputs. Across studies, nurses often described adoption as conditional on organizational readiness and meaningful involvement of nurses in design and implementation. Conclusions: Nurses' accounts suggest that AI may augment clinical work, but the perceived benefits reported in the included literature were contingent on workflow alignment, usable interfaces, training, and supportive infrastructure. These findings suggest potential value in involving nurses in the co-design and iterative refinement of AI tools, grounded in the consistent evidence that facilitating conditions, such as training, interoperability, and organizational readiness, are the primary determinants of whether AI is experienced positively. Prospective evaluation using nursing-relevant outcomes, such as usability, workflow integration, and trust, is needed to move beyond post hoc experiential accounts and establish what implementation conditions reliably produce benefit.

JMIR NursingVol. 9
Department of Health and Social Care (GB), University of British Columbia (CA), University of Manchester (GB)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.