Journal of advanced nursing · 2026
The Functional Requirements of Person-Centred Fundamental Care: Evaluating Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Against a Depleted Baseline.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Blenis R Colin
Аннотация
AIM: To propose provisional, theory-informed questions for evaluating whether artificial intelligence and robotic deployments support person-centred fundamental care when current practice is depleted.
DESIGN: Discursive theoretical paper.
METHODS: Purposive conceptual synthesis of fundamental care scholarship, selected behavioural and developmental theories, vulnerability scholarship, and illustrative technology evidence.
RESULTS: Three lenses generate provisional questions about patient-specific meaning, connections among care activities over time, and the conditions sustaining responsive care. A separate ethical argument holds that delegating activities does not discharge professional or institutional obligations to patients. Applications to adaptive monitoring, social interaction, generative dialogue, and physical-task automation distinguish what the technology can do, how care work changes, and the effects on care. Hypothetical variations distinguish failures of interpretation, follow-through, and supporting conditions and identify grounds for favourable judgements.
CONCLUSION: Improvement over current practice does not establish adequate person-centred fundamental care. Replacing an activity does not establish replacement of the care relationship. The questions require participatory refinement and empirical testing.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nurses and leaders can use the questions to identify changes in care and work and deficits that remain, including when an imperfect deployment offers a justified improvement over feasible alternatives.
IMPACT: The questions address inadequate care as an evaluation benchmark and offer patients, nurses, and decision-makers a way to evaluate technology deployment and service redesign.
REPORTING METHOD: Discursive theoretical analysis; no applicable reporting checklist.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.
DESIGN: Discursive theoretical paper.
METHODS: Purposive conceptual synthesis of fundamental care scholarship, selected behavioural and developmental theories, vulnerability scholarship, and illustrative technology evidence.
RESULTS: Three lenses generate provisional questions about patient-specific meaning, connections among care activities over time, and the conditions sustaining responsive care. A separate ethical argument holds that delegating activities does not discharge professional or institutional obligations to patients. Applications to adaptive monitoring, social interaction, generative dialogue, and physical-task automation distinguish what the technology can do, how care work changes, and the effects on care. Hypothetical variations distinguish failures of interpretation, follow-through, and supporting conditions and identify grounds for favourable judgements.
CONCLUSION: Improvement over current practice does not establish adequate person-centred fundamental care. Replacing an activity does not establish replacement of the care relationship. The questions require participatory refinement and empirical testing.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nurses and leaders can use the questions to identify changes in care and work and deficits that remain, including when an imperfect deployment offers a justified improvement over feasible alternatives.
IMPACT: The questions address inadequate care as an evaluation benchmark and offer patients, nurses, and decision-makers a way to evaluate technology deployment and service redesign.
REPORTING METHOD: Discursive theoretical analysis; no applicable reporting checklist.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.