The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Building Clinical Simulations With ChatGPT in Nursing Education
Abstract
Background: Competency-based nursing education necessitates effective instructional methods and assessment tools for evaluating students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Clinical simulation has emerged as a valuable approach, but creating well-crafted simulations traditionally requires substantial time and effort. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI), exemplified by ChatGPT (OpenAI), offers promising advancements in streamlining scenario creation. Method: This article explores the application of ChatGPT-3, version GPT-3, created by OpenAI in generating clinical simulation scenarios for nursing education. The focus is on the convenience, speed, and creativity provided by ChatGPT, enabling nurse educators to save time while developing intricate and thought-provoking scenarios. Results: ChatGPT generates intricate scenarios that stimulate critical thinking, significantly reducing the time required for nurse educators to create simulations. This AI tool's ability to produce clinical simulations quickly demonstrates its potential to enhance educational experiences in nursing. Conclusion: ChatGPT's convenience, speed, and innovative capabilities make it invaluable for constructing dynamic clinical simulations, opening new avenues for innovative instruction in nursing education. This article highlights the transformative role of AI in empowering educators and enhancing educational experiences, showcasing ChatGPT's potential to revolutionize nursing education despite ongoing discussions about its potential negative impacts. [ J Nurs Educ . 2025;64(5):e6–e7.]
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
American Association of Colleges of Nursing
Beard, E. L. (2002) · JONA s Healthcare Law Ethics and Regulation · doi:10.1097/00128488-200209000-00004 · Cited by 3,046
Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse?
O’Connor, S., & ChatGPT (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537 · Cited by 585
The ChatGPT Storm and What Faculty Can Do
Sun, G. H., & Hoelscher, S. H. (2023) · Nurse Educator · doi:10.1097/nne.0000000000001390 · Cited by 305
ChatGPT: Disruptive Educational Technology
Frith, K. H. (2023) · Nursing Education Perspectives · doi:10.1097/01.nep.0000000000001129 · Cited by 43
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- OpenAI.(n.d.). ChatGPT. https://openai.com/product/chatgpt
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Durmuş Sarıkahya, S., Özbay, Ö., Torpuş, K., Usta, G., & Çınar Özbay, S. (2025) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106755 · Cited by 60
Amankwaa, I., Ekpor, E., Cudjoe, D., Kobiah, E., Fuseini, A.-K. J., Diebieri, M., Gyamfi, S., & Brownie, S. (2025) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106822 · Cited by 20
Large Language Models in Nursing Education: Concept Analysis
Harrington, J. E., Booth, R. G., & Jackson, K. T. (2025) · JMIR Nursing · doi:10.2196/77948 · Cited by 22
Aydın, G. Ö., Küçükaydınoğlu, S., Palloş, A., Coşkun, E. Y., & Turan, N. (2025) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104429 · Cited by 9
Liu, J., Wang, L., He, X., Xia, Y., Gong, X., Wu, R., Li, S., & Wu, L. (2025) · Clinical Simulation in Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2025.101770 · Cited by 11
Huang, H., & Shu, S.-H. (2025) · Clinical Simulation in Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2025.101732 · Cited by 7
Wyss, L. L., & Hess, R. F. (2025) · Journal of Transcultural Nursing · doi:10.1177/10436596251375925 · Cited by 5
Effectiveness of ChatGPT for Clinical Scenario Generation: A Qualitative Study.
Ghaffari, F., Langarizadeh, M., Nabovati, E., & Sabery, M. (2025) · Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.22037/aaemj.v13i1.2690 · Cited by 4
Sun, G. H. (2025) · Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · doi:10.1097/jxx.0000000000001170 · Cited by 4
Using ChatGPT to Engage Generation Z With Historical Nursing Theorists.
Shustack, L. M. (2025) · The Journal of Nursery Education · doi:10.3928/01484834-20250806-01 · Cited by 2
Thanh, S., To, C. L., Huynh, Q. K. V., Huynh, D. T., Nguyen, S. T.-T., & Le, P. T. –. L. (2025) · Y HOC TP HO CHI MINH · doi:10.32895/mpr.25.00040 · Cited by 2
Martin, B., & Reid, M. (2026) · Nursing Outlook · doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2026.102699 · Cited by 1
Hamadeh, S., Abdelkader, A., Winchester, T., Cowan, A., Olasoji, M., & Joseph, B. (2026) · Nurse Educator · doi:10.1097/nne.0000000000002181 · Cited by 1
Amankwaa, I., Ekpor, E., Cudjoe, D., Kobiah, E., Fuseini, A.-K. J., Diebieri, M., Gyamfi, S., & Brownie, S. M. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6493164/v1
Blinded But Biased: Students Prefer Chatbot Until They Know It Is One
Lambert, J., Martin, B. E., Stamm, R., White, S., & Kroger-Jarvis, M. A. (2026) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/01484834-20260216-01 · Cited by 1
Kellam, H., Cortés, L. E. P., Dange, A., & Sterling, K. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.100513
Importance of AI Chatbot in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review
Ghaffar, T., Balakrishnan, R., & Javaid, M. A. A. (2026) · Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal · doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v7i4.2271
Lee, W., Lee, H., Jang, Y., Lee, H., Shin, H., & Yang, E. (2026) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2026.107214
Luo, J., Li, S., Wang, M., Cao, X., & Li, H. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2026.3708984
Alefragkis, D., Aloizou, D., & Chougia, V. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.114402
Artificial Intelligence in Simulation Design
Gupta, K., Lavoie, M., Guse, S., Tay, K., & Hrdy, M. (2026) · Simulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000953
Wang, C., Yang, L., Cai, X., Wu, Y., Lin, Y., huang, F., & Geng, C. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.112293
Wan, W., Yu, X., Guo, Q., Zhang, Z., Huang, M., Liu, G., & Zhou, H. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1916153
Metadata
- Authors
- Reid, J. A.
- Affiliations
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reid, Jason A.
- Venue
- Journal of Nursing Education
- Publisher
- SLACK, Inc.
- Published
- 2025-05
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e6-e7
- ISSN
- 0148-4834 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-2421
- OpenAlex
- W4401077273
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 12
- FWCI
- 6.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Nursing Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, clinical simulation, nursing education, scenario development, artificial intelligence in education, competency-based nursing education, critical thinking
- MeSH terms
- Simulation Training, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Competence, Competency-Based Education, Education, Nursing, Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate, Humans, Nursing Education Research
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
