Recent health care technology headlines have celebrated something hospitals desperately need: fewer clicks. Health systems piloting ambient artificial intelligence for nursing documentation describe less back-charting and more time with patients. The technology is promising, though questions remain about patient experience and scaling.
Other reporting has described a more unsettling possibility: Artificial intelligence could reshape hospital work through new expectations, monitoring, and productivity pressure. Saving time on documentation does not automatically mean giving health care workers time to recover.
Reading these stories, I wondered: If AI gives a nurse ten minutes back, who gets to decide what those ten minutes are for?
I work in health care management in Taiwan while pursuing doctoral research. I have come to recognize two kinds of professional exhaustion. One comes from caring for people: discharge arrangements, staffing, difficult conversations, unexpected emergencies, and the responsibility that follows a patient home. The other comes from constantly proving that our work has value.
Real physician voices, twice a week
Free, and one click to unsubscribe.
For colleagues who also teach, study, or conduct research, the second burden often arrives in four short labels: Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4. These are journal quartiles, often reported through Journal Citation Reports (JCR). A quartile ranks journals relative to others in a subject category. It does not rank the kindness of a nurse, the clinical judgment of a physician, or the importance of a problem affecting patients. Yet under promotion and institutional recognition systems, a journal-level metric can begin to feel like a verdict on a person.
I have watched how easily a practical question becomes an administrative one. A team asks whether an intervention helped older adults remain active; later, the conversation shifts to where the manuscript can be published, whether its index qualifies, and how many points it will earn. Those questions can be necessary. They are not the same as asking whether the work helped someone.
This autumn, I experienced a small version of that tension. A manuscript on AI-supported aging care was judged unsuitable for its original journal and moved into a publisher’s transfer process. The editors suggested other possible venues. Some of the options discussed were indexed only in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
A transfer is not acceptance, and a scope decision is not proof that the research is worthless. Still, our academic recognition requirements made the distinction consequential: A journal indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) or the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) could meet certain requirements, while an ESCI-only journal might not. We were considering an institutional rule, not claiming that every ESCI journal lacks scientific quality.
There is an irony here. Clarivate introduced unified JCR rankings that include ESCI journals in relevant science and social science categories. An ESCI journal may therefore have a Journal Impact Factor and a Q1 to Q4 quartile. “ESCI” is not another way of saying “Q4.” But an institution may still recognize one index and exclude another.
The manuscript had not suddenly lost its questions, its reviewers’ comments, or the hours invested by its authors. What changed was the route through which the institution might count it. I found that distinction harder to leave at the office than I expected.
Academic uncertainty resembles the quieter side of clinical work. We wait for decisions, revise in response to criticism, write careful explanations, and try not to mistake a procedural outcome for a statement about our worth. Then another deadline appears.
Against that background, I have returned to an almost unfashionable practice in the AI era: writing personal essays in the spirit of the traditional blog. Before every sentence could be optimized for search engines and generated in seconds, people used blogs to make room for experiences that did not belong in a chart, report, or promotion file. They wrote about a hard day, an unexpected kindness, an uncomfortable question, or a disappointment too small to justify a formal meeting but too persistent to forget.
The traditional blog was not always a publishing strategy. Sometimes it was a private form of attention. Writing one paragraph forced a person to ask: What actually happened? Why did it stay with me? What can I carry forward, and what can I set down?
Today, AI can help me organize ideas, check grammar, and communicate across languages. I welcome those tools. But when a machine can produce a polished reflection instantly, the danger is that we may mistake polish for processing. An elegant paragraph is not evidence that the writer has made sense of an experience.
I have published more than forty essays on KevinMD. I appreciate every opportunity to reach readers. Yet I do not want to transform that count into another quartile, another target, or another source of guilt. Not every shift needs a story; not every feeling needs an audience.
The reason to write is sometimes more modest. A difficult encounter becomes a few sentences in a notebook. A hospital colleague writes a private reflection after a demanding shift. Two coworkers discuss a piece that reminds them of an experience they have never quite found words for. The benefit, if it comes, lies in making meaning and connection rather than producing another piece of content.
Research gives this idea some support, but it calls for humility. A 2026 systematic review of expressive writing among health care professionals found potentially beneficial effects on psychological distress, while results for burnout and related outcomes were mixed. Writing may be useful for some people. It is not a cure, and it should never become a mandatory wellness exercise.
Hospitals could make space for voluntary writing groups, reflective conversations, or protected time to think. AI could serve as a language assistant rather than a substitute for experience. Staff would need clear privacy rules: no identifiable patient information, no exposing a coworker’s private struggle without permission, and no pressure to disclose personal pain to a supervisor.
More importantly, reflection cannot substitute for safe staffing, fair schedules, adequate rest, or access to confidential mental health care. No one should be expected to write beautifully about a system that refuses to change.
Hospitals are skilled at measuring admissions, discharges, encounters, citations, impact factors, and documentation time. Each measure can be useful. None tells us whether a nurse felt supported after a hard shift or whether a researcher could sleep after a disappointing decision.
Perhaps the old blog still has a role in the age of AI precisely because it does not have to function like a dashboard. It allows someone to say, in imperfect words, “That was difficult,” and to discover that another person understands.
I still believe in rigorous research and responsible publication standards. I still care about getting a manuscript into an appropriate journal. But I do not believe a journal’s quartile should determine whether a professional experience deserves to be expressed.
Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 classify journals, not people. ESCI describes an index, not a person’s worth. And an AI-generated draft, however fluent, cannot decide how a lived experience should matter to the person who lived it.
If technology can save clinicians thousands of clicks, I hope health care leaders will return some of that time to their people, not simply recalculate it as another productivity goal.
AI can draft what happened during a clinical encounter. The people who lived through the day are still the ones who can tell us what it meant. Sometimes the first step toward recovery is not another publication or perfectly optimized paragraph. It is simply having somewhere to write, and knowing that someone may listen.
Gerald Kuo, a PhD candidate in the Graduate Institute of Business Administration at Fu Jen Catholic University in Taiwan, specializes in health care management, long-term care systems, AI governance in clinical and social care settings, and elder care policy. He is vice chairperson of the Taiwan Home Health Care Charity Association, deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Society of Medication, Exercise, and Nutrition for Aging, and a management specialist at the Taipei Jen-Chi Relief Institution. He maintains a professional presence on Facebook, where he shares updates on research and community work. Kuo helps operate a day-care center for older adults, working closely with families, nurses, and community physicians. His research and practical efforts focus on reducing administrative strain on clinicians, strengthening continuity and quality of elder care, and developing sustainable service models through data, technology, and cross-disciplinary collaboration. He is particularly interested in how emerging AI tools can support aging clinical workforces, enhance care delivery, and build greater trust between health systems and the public.
