The Authors Respond

Abstract

We thank Kraevsky and colleagues for their thoughtful comments and feedback regarding our article in Critical Care Nurse,1 and we welcome the opportunity to address the points raised. Although the article was written as a narrative review, we acknowledge that we should have explicitly stated our inclusion and exclusion criteria, and we apologize for any resulting confusion. Our intent was to include only those studies that aligned with the review’s objectives and its central themes of ethics, risk, and benefit. We also recognize that this area of inquiry is rapidly evolving; several of the studies referenced by Kraevsky et al were published while our article was already in press.2–6We agree that our original statement regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and vasopressor titration was unintentionally overstated. Our intent was to reference existing predictive functionalism within widely used electronic health record tools, such as best practice advisories that aggregate flow sheet data and generate rule-based alerts through clinical decision support systems, rather than to imply that electronic health records currently determine vasopressor dose adjustments.7 Our goal was to highlight that the existing tools, when combined with the clinical expertise, contextual understanding, and judgment of critical care nurses, can yield superior performance compared with any AI operating in isolation.8Regarding our statement that “no literature shows that AI provides long-term benefits for nurses,” we recognize that a more accurate framing would acknowledge that long-term outcomes have not yet been thoroughly studied. This gap underscores the need for continued research rather than suggesting a definitive conclusion. Our intention was to emphasize that, based on the studies referenced in our review, there is currently no longitudinal evidence demonstrating the long-term benefits of AI for nursing practice, as much of this work remains ongoing. We also appreciate the concern that overly definitive language could unintentionally imply that AI holds limited value for nursing. Our intention was not to suggest that AI lacks value for nursing, but to underscore that enthusiasm for AI must be balanced with the ethical and moral responsibilities of nurses. We aimed to guide readers toward understanding that the benefits of AI must be integrated within a strong ethical framework, including the need for a dedicated code of ethics to support ethically grounded, AI-augmented clinical decision-making. Just as nursing informatics evolved to incorporate informatics literacy into professional judgment, we seek to highlight the importance of ethical accountability and nurse-led governance as AI becomes increasingly embedded in care delivery.As noted earlier, the field of AI in nursing is fluid and rapidly evolving, and several relevant articles were published while our article was already in press. Our article was designed to encourage all nurses to actively engage in discussions about AI, particularly its ethical implications and its influence on professional practice. We look forward to continued dialogue on this important topic.

Ähnliche Arbeiten