Generative AI · Education leadership

Actionable companion · Assessment and evidence of learning

From evidence to district action: Health Professional Students’ Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence During Clinical Placements: Cross-Sectional Online Survey Study

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. The district actions are proposed applications, not findings or recommendations attributed to the original authors. No additional peer review is asserted.

Read original paperSearch paper agentCC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Health-professions education context: test transfer to K–12 rather than assuming it.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Abstract Background Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly expanding in higher education and clinical practice. However, its use during clinical placements, where cognitive demands and responsibility for patient care increase, remains insufficiently documented. Objective This study aimed to characterize self-reported GenAI use during clinical placements, perceived benefits and risks, and related training and governance needs. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey at a French university (July 17 to September 30, 2025). Eligible participants were students in medicine, pharmacy, nursing, midwifery, or physiotherapy who were currently in, or had completed within the past 18 months, a clinical placement. A 61-item questionnaire (comprising closed- and open-ended items) assessed GenAI use, task patterns, perceived benefits or risks, and training or governance needs. A composite index classified self-perceived GenAI maturity as minimal, limited, moderate, or high. Group comparisons used χ2 tests; maturity gradients used trend tests. Results A total of 388 students responded (n=308, 79.4% women), mainly nursing students (n=217, 55.9%). Overall, 204 (52.6%) students reported using GenAI during clinical placements. Use differed across disciplines (χ24=10.71; P=.03), with lower uptake in midwifery (6/23, 26%; odds ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.11‐0.77). Adoption increased markedly with self-perceived maturity (minimal: 2/22, 9% vs high: 22/29, 76%; trend P<.001). Among the 204 users, the most commonly reported uses were information retrieval (n=159, 77.9%), bibliographic search (n=152, 74.5%), and translation or rephrasing (n=145, 71.1%); patient-facing activities were less frequently reported (eg, patient-document drafting or communication preparation: n=78, 38.2%). Although most users reported never entering direct patient identifiers, 48 (23.5%) reported at least 1 disclosure of patient-identifying information, and 96 (47.1%) reported processing real medical content perceived as anonymized. The most endorsed perceived benefits among the 388 students were documentation support (n=315, 81.2%) and improved access to information (n=266, 68.5%). The most endorsed risks were dependency (n=353, 90.9%), skill erosion (n=329, 84.8%), and confidentiality breaches (n=339, 87.4%). Training needs were highest for ethics or regulatory training (294/378, 77.7%) and a best-practice clinical guide (292/373, 78.3%). Conclusions GenAI is already used by a substantial proportion of French students in health professions during clinical placements, predominantly for information and documentation support rather than patient-facing activities. Self-perceived readiness is strongly associated with adoption. Reported disclosures and concurrent concerns about dependency, skill erosion, and confidentiality support the need for structured curricula and clear governance frameworks to enable responsible, patient-centered integration of GenAI into clinical education.

A 90-day district pilot

  1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
  2. Days 16–30 · Design. Redesign one low-stakes assessment: require a first attempt, an AI-assisted revision, a source-check log and a short oral explanation. Use the same rubric for the comparison task. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
  3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
  4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning, factual accuracy and unaided transfer on a fresh task. Record suspected misconduct separately from demonstrated evidence. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Sylvain Kotzki; Calvin Massonnet Turner; Kim Gauthier; Mélanie Minoves; Nicolas Vuillerme. Health Professional Students’ Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence During Clinical Placements: Cross-Sectional Online Survey Study. JMIR Medical Education (2026-04-27). https://doi.org/10.2196/85243

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.