Aim To develop a consensus paper on the central points of an international invitational think‐tank on nursing and artificial intelligence (AI). Methods We established the Nursing and Artificial Intelligence Leadership (NAIL) Collaborative, comprising interdisciplinary experts in AI development, biomedical ethics, AI in primary care, AI legal aspects, philosophy of AI in health, nursing practice, implementation science, leaders in health informatics practice and international health informatics groups, a representative of patients and the public, and the Chair of the ITU/WHO Focus Group on Artificial Intelligence for Health. The NAIL Collaborative convened at a 3‐day invitational think tank in autumn 2019. Activities included a pre‐event survey, expert presentations and working sessions to identify priority areas for action, opportunities and recommendations to address these. In this paper, we summarize the key discussion points and notes from the aforementioned activities. Implications for nursing Nursing's limited current engagement with discourses on AI and health posts a risk that the profession is not part of the conversations that have potentially significant impacts on nursing practice. Conclusion There are numerous gaps and a timely need for the nursing profession to be among the leaders and drivers of conversations around AI in health systems. Impact We outline crucial gaps where focused effort is required for nursing to take a leadership role in shaping AI use in health systems. Three priorities were identified that need to be addressed in the near future: (a) Nurses must understand the relationship between the data they collect and AI technologies they use; (b) Nurses need to be meaningfully involved in all stages of AI: from development to implementation; and (c) There is a substantial untapped and an unexplored potential for nursing to contribute to the development of AI technologies for global health and humanitarian efforts.

No abstract

It is possible to determine which intoxicated trauma patients are at increased risk for DT using the above predictors. Patients who develop DT have worse outcomes than those who do not. Whether routine DT prophylaxis would improve outcomes among those at increased risk for DT is unknown, but deserves further study.