The term “AI nurse” is appearing with increasing frequency in healthcare technology pitches and product descriptions. But for many nursing leaders, it is a line that should not be crossed.
Titles such as nurse and physician are not marketing tools, Marc Benoy, BSN, RN, chief nursing information officer at Akron, Ohio-based Summa Health, told Becker’s.
“At first glance, it might seem clever or forward-thinking,” Mr. Benoy said. “But it raises real ethical, legal and professional concerns.” Labeling software with those titles, he added, risks misleading patients and “blurring boundaries that are essential to safe, regulated care.”
“This isn’t about resisting innovation,” he said. “It’s about protecting the integrity of our professions.” To Mr. Benoy, credibility in nursing extends beyond technical skill to include “judgment, empathy, and responsibility.” When technology starts to take on professional identities, he said, “it can erode that trust and confuse accountability.”
Mr. Benoy also noted that regulators are beginning to pay attention to how technology products use professional titles. Even naming conventions, he said, “can affect whether a product falls under medical-device regulation,” with potential compliance and liability implications.
At Tampa, Fla.-based Moffitt Cancer Center, CNIO Marc Perkins-Carrillo, MSN, RN, shares similar concerns.
“The title nurse is earned through rigorous education, licensure, and adherence to ethical standards, none of which apply to artificial intelligence systems,” he said. “Referring to AI agents as nurses is not only misleading but undermines public trust and the integrity of a profession consistently ranked among the most honest and ethical.”
Mr. Perkins-Carrillo noted that several states have introduced legislation to prohibit nonhuman entities from using nursing titles, “recognizing the risk of patient confusion and misrepresentation.” He said he “strongly opposes the use of the term ‘AI nurse’” and advocates for “precise, respectful language that preserves the credibility and accountability of licensed nursing professionals.”
But not all leaders view the label as harmful. At Charleston, S.C.-based Roper St. Francis, CNIO Jared Houck, RN, said the term does not offend him, calling it “just imperfect shorthand in a society where language evolves daily.”
“We love labels that connect new ideas, AI, to concepts we already understand, nurses,” Mr. Houck said. He compared the concept to aviation: “We trust autopilot to fly planes, and simultaneously we understand the pilot ultimately still holds responsibility. The same principle applies here.
“AI isn’t becoming a nurse. It’s becoming another tool in the healthcare toolkit.”
The key, Mr. Houck said, is how responsibly those tools are designed, validated and governed.
“If AI can reduce documentation burden, predict risk, or keep patients safer, it strengthens rather than threatens the value of nursing,” he said.
At St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, CNIO Aruna Jagdeo, BSN, RN, agreed with peers who reject the “AI nurse” framing outright.
“AI is not a nurse and cannot replace a licensed professional,” she said. “It is a tool that can be used by health professionals to assist in doing their jobs or aiding in clinical decision-making.”
Across perspectives, one source of tension runs through the debate: how to balance enthusiasm for AI’s potential with the need to preserve professional clarity and public trust.
As Mr. Benoy put it: “AI should enhance clinical work, not impersonate it. The question I keep coming back to is: Who’s standing guard over these boundaries for our clinicians, and how do we respond when they’re crossed?”
