MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411753922 · doi:10.2196/72674

Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions for the Integration of Automation in Nursing Practice: Discursive Study

2025· article· en· W4411753922 on OpenAlex
Joseph Andrew Pepito, Neilan John Acaso, Rommel Merioles, Judith D. Ismael

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintAutomationEngineering ethicsSociologyNursingEngineeringComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Global health care systems are under increasing strain due to aging populations, workforce shortages, and rising patient complexity. In response, automation technologies are being explored as a means to optimize nursing workflows, reduce burdens, and improve patient outcomes. However, the integration of such technologies raises complex ethical, legal, and professional considerations that remain insufficiently addressed in current literature. Objective: This study aims to critically examine the integration of automation into nursing practice through a discursive analysis. Specifically, it seeks to (1) identify nursing tasks most amenable to automation; (2) evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of automating these tasks; (3) explore ethical and legal implications; (4) propose strategies for ethical and equitable integration; and (5) outline future directions for research, practice, and policy. Methods: An integrative review and conceptual analysis were conducted, grounded in sociotechnical systems theory and the ethics of care. A structured search across PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and JMIR Publications identified 73 peer-reviewed papers published between 2019 and 2025. Thematic synthesis was performed to identify key domains relevant to automation in nursing. Results: Five major categories of automatable nursing tasks were identified: administrative documentation, medication management, patient monitoring, infection control, and mobility support. Automation in these areas was associated with improved efficiency, enhanced patient safety, and reduced physical and cognitive workload for nurses. Nevertheless, challenges such as deskilling, dehumanization of care, inequitable access, and unclear legal accountability were prominent. The study proposes the Integration of Automation Technologies in Nursing Practice Conceptual Framework. Conclusions: The ethical integration of automation into nursing practice requires more than technological readiness; it demands policy development, targeted education, and inclusive governance. When guided by professional values and human-centered design, automation can complement nursing practice and improve care delivery. Future research should prioritize longitudinal impact assessments, legal clarity, and equitable infrastructure investment to support sustainable adoption.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it