Cited by 89Nursing Diagnosis and DocumentationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

The ChatGPT effect and transforming nursing education with generative AI: Discussion paper

Gosak, Lucija, Pruinelli, Lisiane, Topaz, Maxim, Štiglic, Gregor·2024·Nurse Education in Practice

Abstract

Aim The aim of this study is to present the possibilities of nurse education in the use of the Chat Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) tool to support the documentation process.Background The success of the nursing process is based on the accuracy of nursing diagnoses, which also determine nursing interventions and nursing outcomes. Educating nurses in the use of artificial intelligence in the nursing process can significantly reduce the time nurses spend on documentation.Design Discussion paper.Methods We used a case study from Train4Health in the field of preventive care to demonstrate the potential of using Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) to educate nurses in documenting the nursing process using generative artificial intelligence. Based on the case study, we entered a description of the patient's condition into Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) and asked questions about nursing diagnoses, nursing interventions and nursing outcomes. We further synthesized these results.Results In the process of educating nurses about the nursing process and nursing diagnosis, Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) can present potential patient problems to nurses and guide them through the process from taking a medical history, setting nursing diagnoses and planning goals and interventions. Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) returned appropriate nursing diagnoses, but these were not in line with the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association - International (NANDA-I) classification as requested. Of all the nursing diagnoses provided, only one was consistent with the most recent version of the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association - International (NANDA-I). Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) is still not specific enough for nursing diagnoses, resulting in incorrect answers in several cases.Conclusions Using Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) to educate nurses and support the documentation process is time-efficient, but it still requires a certain level of human critical-thinking and fact-checking.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nepr.2024.103888

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gosak, L., Pruinelli, L., Topaz, M., & Štiglic, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Maribor (SI)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Gosak, Lucija
Venue
Nurse Education in Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-02
Volume
75
Pages
103888
ISSN
1471-5953 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390705612
Cited by
89
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 21
FWCI
99.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nurse Education in Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI, nursing education, nursing documentation, nursing process, nursing diagnosis, NANDA-I, nursing interventions, nursing outcomes, preventive medicine, artificial intelligence in education, critical thinking
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Documentation, Education, Nursing, Educational Status, Humans, Nursing Diagnosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review