Nurse education in practice · 2026
The credential and the clinician: Generative AI, cognitive substitution, and what universities owe society in nursing education.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brenner Andrew, Müller Amanda
Аннотация
AIM/OBJECTIVE: To argue that generative AI (GenAI) poses a distinct threat to nursing credentialling, one that operates as cognitive substitution rather than cognitive supplement, and to examine why a prominent institutional response to GenAI in assessment, while well designed for general higher education, fails when applied to nursing.
BACKGROUND: Nursing registration across jurisdictions rests on the assumption that university assessment has verified a graduate's competence. GenAI is now widely used in assessed work. When it produces the work through which competence is certified, the credential ceases to be a reliable guarantee of what it claims to represent, with direct implications for patient safety.
DESIGN: A discussion paper drawing on educational, neuroscientific, and health professional literature, and on institutional and statutory sources.
METHODS: Critical analysis of a prominent institutional assessment framework, set against empirical evidence on cognitive offloading and the documented transfer of academic dishonesty into clinical practice.
RESULTS: The two-lane framework relocates competence verification to supervised, secure assessments while permitting GenAI use in open assessments. This holds only if secure assessments can certify the full scope of nursing competence. They cannot, because clinical reasoning is built cumulatively through the very work the open lane now permits GenAI to perform. The framework therefore tests a capacity it has allowed to go undeveloped.
CONCLUSIONS: The harm is structural and temporal, accumulating before longitudinal evidence can reveal it. Honouring the credential's promise requires institutional reform, not detection, and possibly the separation of the degree from registration.
BACKGROUND: Nursing registration across jurisdictions rests on the assumption that university assessment has verified a graduate's competence. GenAI is now widely used in assessed work. When it produces the work through which competence is certified, the credential ceases to be a reliable guarantee of what it claims to represent, with direct implications for patient safety.
DESIGN: A discussion paper drawing on educational, neuroscientific, and health professional literature, and on institutional and statutory sources.
METHODS: Critical analysis of a prominent institutional assessment framework, set against empirical evidence on cognitive offloading and the documented transfer of academic dishonesty into clinical practice.
RESULTS: The two-lane framework relocates competence verification to supervised, secure assessments while permitting GenAI use in open assessments. This holds only if secure assessments can certify the full scope of nursing competence. They cannot, because clinical reasoning is built cumulatively through the very work the open lane now permits GenAI to perform. The framework therefore tests a capacity it has allowed to go undeveloped.
CONCLUSIONS: The harm is structural and temporal, accumulating before longitudinal evidence can reveal it. Honouring the credential's promise requires institutional reform, not detection, and possibly the separation of the degree from registration.