Back

Early insights into nurses' perceptions, opportunities, and concerns regarding Ambient artificial intelligence in nursing practice

Yang, Y.-C.; Turchioe, M. R.; Shamnath, A.; Rossetti, S. C.

2026-09-07 health informatics
10.64898/2026.09.02.26362036 medRxiv
Show abstract

Documentation burden remains a persistent challenge in nursing practice, and Ambient artificial intelligence (Ambient AI) may offer new opportunities to mitigate the burden and improve nursing practice. This brief scientific communication reports survey findings on the current status of Ambient AI implementation in U.S. inpatient nursing settings and nurses' perceptions of its anticipated benefits and concerns. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of practicing inpatient nurses recruited from nursing-focused social media communities. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize Ambient adoption, user experience, and perceived benefits and concerns. Among 61 eligible respondents, nearly 60% (n = 37) reported that Ambient AI had been piloted or implemented in nursing at their healthcare institutions, and approximately half (49.2 %, n = 30) reported having direct experience using Ambient AI in clinical practice. Most nurses with direct experience (73.3%, n = 22) described positive experience using the technology in practice. The frequently identified perceived benefits of Ambient AI include reduced documentation time and improved patient care workflow, and improved data quality. However, nurses also raised concerns about patients' acceptance of the new technology in their care, potential nursing job displacement, and loss of nursing skills due to overreliance on AI technology. Findings suggest that Ambient AI may help reduce nursing documentation burden and workload, yet implementation strategies should address nurses' concerns about its influence on nursing professions, foster trust among clinicians and patients, and support integration into everyday nursing practice.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.