Generative AI · Education leadership

Actionable companion · Assessment and evidence of learning

From evidence to district action: Nurse educators' experiences and perceptions using generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. The district actions are proposed applications, not findings or recommendations attributed to the original authors. No additional peer review is asserted.

Read original paperSearch paper agentCC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Health-professions education context: test transfer to K–12 rather than assuming it.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Abstract Background The rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in higher education has increased both enthusiasm and concern. While students’ use of GenAI has been widely discussed, empirical research focusing on nurse educators’ own experiences and perceptions remains limited. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on nurse educators’ experiences of using generative artificial intelligence in teaching. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ERIC. Peer-reviewed empirical studies published in English were included. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and conducted quality appraisal using established tools. Due to methodological heterogeneity, results were synthesized thematically. Results Thirteen studies were included, representing a total of 3082 participants. Two overarching themes were identified: (1) Nurse educators’ opportunities and challenges using Generative AI in teaching, and (2) Nurse educators’ competence and ways of using Generative AI. Educators described Generative AI as a potentially valuable resource for teaching efficiency and organizational and pedagogical inspiration. They expressed concerns relating to their loss of professional roles, academic integrity, and erosion of critical thinking related to students. Experience with Generative AI, institutional position, organizational policy and support influenced educators’ attitudes, confidence, and use. Discussion The findings reveal a tension between optimism about Generative AI’s pedagogical potential and apprehension about its ethical, educational, and professional implications. Educators’ calls for clearer policies, competency development, and institutional support highlight the need for systematic capacity-building. Conclusion Generative AI's value depends on educators' skills, supportive policies, and intentional use, making structured training and governance essential for integration in nurse education. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-026-10113-0. Keywords: Competency development, Generative artificial intelligence, Nurse education, Nurse Educators

A 90-day district pilot

  1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
  2. Days 16–30 · Design. Redesign one low-stakes assessment: require a first attempt, an AI-assisted revision, a source-check log and a short oral explanation. Use the same rubric for the comparison task. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
  3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
  4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning, factual accuracy and unaided transfer on a fresh task. Record suspected misconduct separately from demonstrated evidence. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Ani Henttonen; Maria Christidis; Helena Kullenberg; Taina Sormunen; Margareta Westerbotn; Ann Hägg-Martinell. Nurse educators' experiences and perceptions using generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education (2026-08-15). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10113-0

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.