Artificial intelligence, as a nonhuman entity, is increasingly used to inform, direct, or supplant nursing care and clinical decision‐making. The boundaries between human‐ and nonhuman‐driven nursing care are blurred with the advent of sensors, wearables, camera devices, and humanoid robots at such an accelerated pace that the critical evaluation of its influence on patient safety has not been fully assessed. Since the pivotal release of To Err is Human, patient safety is being challenged by the dynamic healthcare environment like never (...) before, with nursing at a critical juncture to steer the course of artificial intelligence integration in clinical decision‐making. This paper presents an overview of artificial intelligence and its application in healthcare and highlights the implications which affect nursing as a profession, including perspectives on nursing education and training recommendations. The legal and policy challenges which emerge when artificial intelligence influences the risk of clinical errors and safety issues are discussed. (shrink)

Background: Nosocomial infections represent a serious challenge for healthcare systems worldwide. Adherence to hand hygiene plays a major role in infection prevention and control. These adherence rates can be improved through behaviour tracking innovations. This requires the systems to be widely implemented and accepted. Therefore, both a systematic analysis of the normative issues related and the evaluation of technology acceptance are equally important. Objectives: To explore and describe relevant aspects regarding the acceptance of technology and ethical implications using a tracking (...) device to measure and improve adherence to hand hygiene. Research design: A quantitative study with a descriptive design was performed. Participants and research context: A total of 75 questionnaires were collected in three hospitals in Germany. Acceptance of technology was measured with n = 60 participants and ethical assessment with n = 15 participants. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the institutional review board. Findings: The acceptance of technologies improving hygiene in general was good. The experience with technologies in general and the acceptance of the specific technology ) was moderate. There was a significant positive correlation between the acceptance and experience of technology in general. Ethical concerns played a minor role. The need for practical support was a key topic. Discussion: Study participants accepted technologies improving hygiene; however, the specific device implemented was only moderately accepted. This creates specific opportunities in the implementation process for higher later acceptance. More practical support and an increase in experience may create opportunities for device implementation with high acceptance and low ethical concerns. Conclusion: Study results indicate a vast potential for improving the implementation process of hand hygiene technologies. Ethical concerns in this study did not seem to be a relevant barrier for successful implementation of hand hygiene technologies. (shrink)

Actor‐Network Theory is a research lens that has gained popularity in the nursing and health sciences domains. The perspective allows a researcher to describe the interaction of actors (both human and non‐human) within networked sociomaterial contexts, including complex practice environments where nurses and health technology operate. This study will describe Actor‐Network Theory and provide methodological considerations for researchers who are interested in using this sociotechnical lens within nursing and informatics‐related research. Considerations related to technology conceptualization, levels of analysis, and sampling (...) procedures in Actor‐Network Theory based research are addressed. Finally, implications for future nursing research within complex environments are highlighted. (shrink)

The organizing theme for this special volume raises a momentous question: What are the implications of 21st century science for nursing care? The two terms the question relates – 21st century science and nursing care – are each of central importance for nursing and in philosophical enquiry about nursing as a practice, profession, or institution. These key terms are also highly charged and open to interpretation, as is the relationship of implication between them. Different interpretations or assumptions will steer the (...) search for an answer in quite different directions.Putting the expectation of an answer in abeyance, this paper probes the question precisely in its openness to interpretation and contestation. In elaborating different ways in which the main terms of the question can be taken, and analysing how different interpretations of or assumptions about them lead to different responses, the paper delineates crucial issues and divisions in nursing and commentary about nursing today. (shrink)

Person‐centred practice indubitably seems to be the antithesis of technology. The ostensible polarity of technology and person‐centred practice is an easy road to travel down and in their various forms has been probably travelled for decades if not centuries. By forging ahead or enduring these dualisms, we continue to approach and recede, but never encounter the elusive and the liminal space between technology and person‐centred practice. Inspired by Haraway's work, we argue that healthcare practitioners who critically consider their cyborg ontology (...) may begin the process to initiate and complicate the liminal and sought after space between technology and person‐centred practice. In this paper, we draw upon Haraway's idea that we are all materially and ontologically cyborgs. Cyborgs, the hybridity of machine and human, are part of our social reality and embedded in our everyday existence. By considering our cyborg ontology, we suggest that person‐centred practice can be actualized in the contextualized, embodied and relational spaces of technology. It is not a question of espousing technology or person‐centred practice. Such dualisms have been historically produced and reproduced over many decades and prevented us from recognizing our own cyborg ontology. Rather, it is salient that we take notice of our own cyborg ontology and how technological, habitual ways of being may prevent (and facilitate) us to recognize the embodied and contextualized experiences of patients. A disruption and engagement with the habitual can ensure we are not governed by technology in our logics and practices of care and can move us to a conscious and critical integration of person‐centred practice in the technologized care environments. By acknowledging ourselves as cyborgs, we can recapture and preserve our humanness as caregivers, as well as thrive as we proceed in our technological way of being. (shrink)