zh-ebn-report
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
Chinese台灣護理實證報告寫作教練（Evidence-Based Nursing Report Coach for Taiwan）
Evidence-Based Nursing Report Coach for Taiwanese Nurses
這個技能協助台灣護理人員完成符合台灣護理學會與台灣實證護理學會審查標準的實證報告，涵蓋實證讀書報告與實證案例分析兩種類型。最終目的是幫助護理師通過 N2/N3/N4 進階審查，或產出可投稿的學術作品。
This skill helps Taiwanese nursing staff complete evidence-based reports that meet the review standards of the Taiwan Nurses Association and Taiwan Evidence-Based Nursing Association, covering two types: evidence-based reading reports and evidence-based case analyses. The ultimate goal is to help nurses pass the N2/N3/N4 advancement review or produce academic works suitable for submission.
這份技能涵蓋哪些報告類型
Report Types Covered by This Skill
台灣實證護理圈主要分成兩種入門類型：
| 類型 | 差別 | 對應層級 | 篇幅 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 實證讀書報告（EBR） | 評析幾篇文獻後做邏輯性綜整，無個案應用 | N1、N2 為主 | 約 8–15 頁 |
| 實證案例分析（EBP case analysis） | 將實證結果應用於一位真實病人並評估成效 | N3 以上 | 約 15–25 頁 |
N4 以上多已進入系統性文獻回顧或護理專案研究，本技能不涵蓋這塊。
The Taiwanese evidence-based nursing community mainly has two entry-level types:
| Type | Differences | Corresponding Level | Length |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence-Based Reading Report (EBR) | Logically synthesizes after appraising several literatures, no case application | Mainly for N1, N2 levels | Approximately 8–15 pages |
| Evidence-Based Case Analysis (EBP case analysis) | Applies evidence-based results to a real patient and evaluates outcomes | For N3 and above | Approximately 15–25 pages |
N4 and above mostly progress to systematic literature reviews or nursing project research, which are not covered by this skill.
寫作前的身分確認
Identity Confirmation Before Writing
在動筆前，先跟使用者釐清以下四件事，用以決定使用哪個模板與深度：
- 要寫哪一種報告？（讀書報告 / 案例分析）
- 是哪一級進階？（N1–N4，或是投稿競賽）
- 病房別與個案條件是什麼？（決定主題合理性與可行性）
- 醫院有沒有專用格式範本？（有的話以醫院範本為準，本技能補足內容）
如果這些都還沒確定，不要急著起草，先用 工具詢問。
ask_user_input_v0Before starting to write, clarify the following four points with the user to determine which template and depth to use:
- Which type of report do you need to write? (Reading report / Case analysis)
- Which advancement level is it for? (N1–N4, or submission competition)
- What is the ward type and case conditions? (Determines the rationality and feasibility of the topic)
- Does the hospital have a dedicated format template? (If yes, follow the hospital template; this skill supplements the content)
If these are not confirmed yet, do not rush to draft, use the tool to inquire first.
ask_user_input_v0核心工作流程：實證 5A 步驟
Core Workflow: 5A Evidence-Based Steps
所有實證報告都圍繞這五個步驟，缺一不可（讀書報告可到 Appraise 即可，案例分析必須跑完五步）：
- Ask — 形成可回答的臨床問題（PICO）
- Acquire — 搜尋最佳文獻證據
- Appraise — 嚴格評讀證據（CASP + Oxford 證據等級）
- Apply — 臨床應用到個案（僅案例分析）
- Audit — 結果評值（僅案例分析）
詳細每一步的操作方式、常見錯誤、句型範例，見對應的 reference 檔案。
All evidence-based reports revolve around these five steps, none can be omitted (reading reports can stop at Appraise, while case analyses must complete all five steps):
- Ask — Formulate answerable clinical questions (PICO)
- Acquire — Search for the best literature evidence
- Appraise — Strictly appraise evidence (CASP + Oxford Evidence Levels)
- Apply — Apply clinically to cases (case analysis only)
- Audit — Evaluate outcomes (case analysis only)
Detailed operation methods, common mistakes, and sentence pattern examples for each step can be found in the corresponding reference files.
自動化 Pipeline 與 HITL 審稿角色分工
Automated Pipeline and HITL Review Role Division
本技能搭配 Python CLI（位於專案根的 ），以 10 個具名 subagent 分工完成報告草稿。使用者的角色從「寫作者」轉為「HITL 審稿者」——在 9 個 checkpoint 介入決策、批准或要求重寫，最終的文字仍須以自己的話重寫送審（學術倫理不變）。
zh-ebn-reportsrc/zh_ebn_report/Subagent 分工（詳見 ）：
references/subagent-roles.md| # | 角色 | 並行？ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 題目守門員 | 否 |
| 2 | PICO 建構員 | 否 |
| 3 | 搜尋策略師 | 否 |
| 4 | CASP 評讀員 × N | 是 |
| 5 | 綜整整合員 | 否 |
| 6 | 分節撰寫員 × 4–6 | 是 |
| 7 | 語氣守門員 | 與 8 並行 |
| 8 | APA 7 格式員 | 與 7 並行 |
| 9 | 個案敘事員 (案例分析) | 與 10 並行 |
| 10 | 應用審計員 (案例分析) | 與 9 並行 |
dispatch 原則：彼此輸入沒依賴的 agent 一律並行呼叫（Phase 4 多篇 CASP、Phase 6 各節、Phase 7 語氣+APA、Phase 5.5 個案+應用）。Claude 在互動協助情境下也應採同樣邏輯。
CLI 介面：
zh-ebn-report init --type reading|case --topic "..."
zh-ebn-report run --resume <run-id> # end-to-end
zh-ebn-report topic|pico|search|appraise|synthesise|write|check|render
zh-ebn-report render --final # 去 DRAFT 後綴（需已 review）
zh-ebn-report status <run-id>Pipeline 最終輸出 （Quarto → pandoc → DOCX，APA 7 CSL 引文排版），含搜尋歷程表、CASP 評讀表、PRISMA 風格流程圖、AI 協作聲明頁。若 （可選）存在，將做為樣式母本套用院內字型與樣式；否則以 pandoc 預設樣式輸出。
<報告>-DRAFT.docxtemplates/reference.docx倫理守則（依 2026 年台灣護理學會與台灣實證護理學會規範；詳見 ）：
references/ai-disclosure.md- AI 可以完全生成草稿，但使用者必須 audit、揭露、承擔責任
- CLI 啟動必須傳 flag；未傳不執行
--i-accept-audit-responsibility - Pipeline 自動附三份必要文件：AI 使用揭露段落（研究方法/致謝）、Audit 責任聲明（封面或末頁）、Subagent 執行紀錄（補充資料）
- 檔名預設帶 ；使用者完成審稿並明確勾選「已審閱」後以
-DRAFT去除後綴render --final - AI 不得列為作者；揭露段落須載明工具名稱、模型、版本、具體使用方式
This skill is paired with the Python CLI (located in at the project root), with 10 named subagents dividing work to complete the report draft. The user's role shifts from "writer" to "HITL reviewer" — intervening in decision-making, approving, or requesting rewrites at 9 checkpoints. The final text still needs to be rewritten in the user's own words for review (academic ethics remain unchanged).
zh-ebn-reportsrc/zh_ebn_report/Subagent Division (see for details):
references/subagent-roles.md| # | Role | Parallel? |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Topic Gatekeeper | No |
| 2 | PICO Constructor | No |
| 3 | Search Strategist | No |
| 4 | CASP Appraiser × N | Yes |
| 5 | Synthesis Integrator | No |
| 6 | Section Writer × 4–6 | Yes |
| 7 | Tone Gatekeeper | Parallel with 8 |
| 8 | APA 7 Formatter | Parallel with 7 |
| 9 | Case Narrator (case analysis) | Parallel with 10 |
| 10 | Application Auditor (case analysis) | Parallel with 9 |
Dispatch Principle: Agents with no input dependencies on each other are called in parallel (Phase 4 multiple CASP appraisals, Phase 6 each section, Phase 7 tone + APA, Phase 5.5 case + application). Claude should adopt the same logic in interactive assistance scenarios.
CLI Interface:
zh-ebn-report init --type reading|case --topic "..."
zh-ebn-report run --resume <run-id> # end-to-end
zh-ebn-report topic|pico|search|appraise|synthesise|write|check|render
zh-ebn-report render --final # Remove DRAFT suffix (requires review)
zh-ebn-report status <run-id>The final pipeline output is (Quarto → pandoc → DOCX, APA 7 CSL citation formatting), including search history table, CASP appraisal forms, PRISMA-style flowcharts, and AI collaboration statement page. If (optional) exists, it will be used as a style master to apply hospital fonts and styles; otherwise, pandoc's default styles will be used.
<Report>-DRAFT.docxtemplates/reference.docxEthical Guidelines (in accordance with 2026 Taiwan Nurses Association and Taiwan Evidence-Based Nursing Association regulations; see for details):
references/ai-disclosure.md- AI can fully generate drafts, but users must audit, disclose, and take responsibility
- The CLI must be launched with the flag; it will not execute without this flag
--i-accept-audit-responsibility - The pipeline automatically attaches three necessary documents: AI usage disclosure paragraph (research methods/acknowledgments), Audit responsibility statement (cover or last page), Subagent execution records (supplementary materials)
- The default filename includes ; after the user completes review and explicitly checks "Reviewed", use
-DRAFTto remove the suffixrender --final - AI cannot be listed as an author; the disclosure paragraph must specify the tool name, model, version, and specific usage methods
使用這份技能的流程
Usage Process of This Skill
根據使用者所處的階段，以下列次序提供協助：
Provide assistance in the following order based on the user's stage:
情境 A：使用者還在選題
Scenario A: User is still selecting a topic
先讀 ，幫使用者判斷題目可不可行。避免五大地雷主題（文獻極少、爭議太大、倫理敏感、無法操作、不是護理專業範疇）。
references/topic-selection.md本階段 dispatch：題目守門員（Subagent 1）→ CP1。
First read to help the user judge whether the topic is feasible. Avoid five types of high-risk topics (extremely few literatures, highly controversial, ethically sensitive, unoperable, not within the nursing professional scope).
references/topic-selection.mdDispatch for this stage: Topic Gatekeeper (Subagent 1) → CP1.
情境 B：使用者已有題目，要設 PICO
Scenario B: User has a topic and needs to set up PICO
讀 ，套用 PICO 結構，注意：
references/pico-and-search.md- 中英並列（審查者要看英文關鍵字）
- 標明問題型態（治療型 Therapy / 傷害型 Harm / 診斷型 Diagnosis / 預後型 Prognosis）
- Outcome 盡量量化、可觀察
本階段 dispatch：PICO 建構員（Subagent 2）→ CP2。
Read and apply the PICO structure, noting:
references/pico-and-search.md- Chinese-English parallelism (reviewers need to see English keywords)
- Mark the question type (Therapy / Harm / Diagnosis / Prognosis)
- Outcomes should be as quantifiable and observable as possible
Dispatch for this stage: PICO Constructor (Subagent 2) → CP2.
情境 C：要做文獻搜尋與評讀
Scenario C: Needs to conduct literature search and appraisal
讀 （搜尋策略）與 （評讀工具與證據等級）。
references/pico-and-search.mdreferences/appraisal-tools.md關鍵提醒：
- 搜尋歷程要可重現：資料庫、關鍵字、布林邏輯、欄位碼、Limits、起始篇數、去重後篇數、排除條件、納入篇數全部要交代
- 六件套搜尋策略：主詞 / 同義字 / MeSH / CINAHL Heading / Boolean / 欄位碼
- 初始篇數以 100–1000 為甜蜜區，不在此範圍記錄迭代調整
- 引文追蹤：正向（Google Scholar「Cited by」）+ 反向（reference list）皆做過
- DOI 逐篇驗證（pipeline 自動走 CrossRef；手動可 ）
https://doi.org/<DOI> - 評讀工具對應研究設計：RCT 用 CASP RCT、系統性回顧用 CASP SR、質性研究用 JBI
- 證據等級依 Oxford 2011 準則
本階段 dispatch：搜尋策略師（3）→ CP3 → CP4 → CASP 評讀員 × N 並行（4）→ CP5。
Read (search strategies) and (appraisal tools and evidence levels).
references/pico-and-search.mdreferences/appraisal-tools.mdKey reminders:
- Search history must be reproducible: Clearly document databases, keywords, Boolean logic, field codes, Limits, initial number of articles, number after deduplication, exclusion criteria, and number of included articles
- Six-component search strategy: Main terms / synonyms / MeSH / CINAHL Heading / Boolean / field codes
- Initial number of articles should be in the 100–1000 sweet spot; record iterative adjustments if outside this range
- Citation tracking: Conduct both forward (Google Scholar "Cited by") and backward (reference list) tracking
- Verify DOI one by one (pipeline automatically uses CrossRef; manually use )
https://doi.org/<DOI> - Appraisal tools correspond to research designs: Use CASP RCT for RCTs, CASP SR for systematic reviews, JBI for qualitative research
- Evidence levels follow Oxford 2011 guidelines
Dispatch for this stage: Search Strategist (3) → CP3 → CP4 → CASP Appraiser × N in parallel (4) → CP5.
情境 D：要把實證結果用到個案（案例分析核心）
Scenario D: Needs to apply evidence-based results to cases (core of case analysis)
讀 。注意護理報告獨有的要求：
references/case-report-template.md- 要有護理師原話的直接引語
- 要有個案/家屬原話的直接引語（用引號）
- 要有具體時間點的評估紀錄
- 結果要客觀可測量 + 主觀感受並陳
- 個案資料必須已去識別化（姓名、病歷號、身分證字號全去除）才能進入此階段
本階段 dispatch：綜整整合員（5）→ CP6 → 個案敘事員 + 應用審計員（9、10）並行 → 分節撰寫員 × 6 並行（6）→ CP7。
Read . Note the unique requirements of nursing reports:
references/case-report-template.md- Include direct quotes from the nurse's original words
- Include direct quotes from the case/family's original words (in quotation marks)
- Include assessment records with specific time points
- Outcomes should present both objective measurable data and subjective feelings
- Case data must be de-identified (name, medical record number, ID number must be removed) before entering this stage
Dispatch for this stage: Synthesis Integrator (5) → CP6 → Case Narrator + Application Auditor (9, 10) in parallel → Section Writer × 6 in parallel (6) → CP7.
情境 E：要寫結論與討論
Scenario E: Needs to write conclusions and discussions
讀 。結論段的標準動作：
references/phrasing-bank.md- 回應 PICO 的結論
- 承認研究限制
- 本地脈絡考量（不能貿然全面推翻護理常規）
- 對未來臨床與教育的建議
本階段 dispatch：分節撰寫員（6，結論節）→ 語氣守門員 + APA 7 格式員（7、8）並行 → CP8 → Quarto render → CP9。
Read . Standard actions for the conclusion section:
references/phrasing-bank.md- Respond to the conclusion of the PICO question
- Acknowledge research limitations
- Consider local context (do not rashly overturn nursing routines entirely)
- Provide suggestions for future clinical practice and education
Dispatch for this stage: Section Writer (6, conclusion section) → Tone Gatekeeper + APA 7 Formatter (7, 8) in parallel → CP8 → Quarto render → CP9.
寫作風格的核心守則
Core Rules of Writing Style
台灣實證護理報告有一套非常固定的「腔調」，不符合會被當成外行。核心原則：
自稱用「筆者」，不用「我」。
個案不叫「病人」，叫「個案」或「案○」（案母、案父、案兄等）。
動詞偏書面語：
- 不寫「我找了幾篇文章」→ 寫「運用實證方法檢索相關文獻」
- 不寫「病人說他不想躺」→ 寫「個案主訴無法配合長時間平躺」
- 不寫「我覺得應該這樣做」→ 寫「綜整實證結果，建議⋯⋯」
引用文獻中文在前、英文在後，依 APA 第 7 版格式。中文依姓氏筆劃、英文依字母排序。
盡量引用近 5 年文獻，除非是重要的經典研究。
更多句型範例見 。
references/phrasing-bank.mdTaiwanese evidence-based nursing reports have a very fixed "tone"; failing to comply will be considered unprofessional. Core principles:
Use "the author" instead of "I" for self-reference.
Do not call cases "patients"; use "case" or "Case X" (e.g., Case Mother, Case Father, Case Brother, etc.).
Use formal written verbs:
- Instead of "I found several articles", write "Used evidence-based methods to retrieve relevant literatures"
- Instead of "The patient said he didn't want to lie down", write "The case reported inability to cooperate with prolonged lying position"
- Instead of "I think we should do this", write "Synthesizing evidence-based results, it is recommended that..."
Cite Chinese literatures first, then English ones, following APA 7th edition format. Chinese literatures are sorted by stroke count of surnames; English literatures are sorted alphabetically.
Try to cite literatures from the past 5 years, unless they are important classic studies.
More sentence pattern examples can be found in .
references/phrasing-bank.md審查通過率最高的寫作策略
Writing Strategies with the Highest Review Pass Rate
根據歷年通過的範本歸納，以下做法最能提升通過率：
-
題目要具體而不宏大。「如何減少術後感染」會被退，「在腹部手術後成人，嚼口香糖與一般照護對恢復腸蠕動之效果比較」才會過。
-
搜尋歷程越透明越好。表格呈現：資料庫 / 關鍵字 / 初始篇數 / 排除條件 / 納入篇數。
-
至少納入 2–4 篇高證據等級文獻。Oxford Level I–II（RCT、SR、MA）為主。若文獻極少，可放寬到觀察型研究，但要在討論段說明。
-
CASP 評讀表要完整附上，不能只寫「本文獻效度尚可」這種含糊語言。
-
案例分析要有真實的應用記錄。審查者最討厭看到「計畫要做但沒做」或「應用結果與文獻完全一致」這種過度完美的敘述。有偏差才合理，偏差要能解釋。
-
討論段要體現反思。不要只說「實證結果很棒，以後都這樣做」。要承認在地限制、機構文化、個別差異。
-
AI 協作的新規範（2026 版）：台灣護理學會與台灣實證護理學會已明文允許使用生成式 AI 輔助寫作，條件是：
- AI 不得列為作者
- 必須在研究方法或致謝段主動揭露 AI 工具名稱、版本、具體使用方式
- 作者必須逐節審閱與修訂 AI 產出之內容
- 作者必須聲明「已審閱並修訂 GenAI 產出之內容，並對本文內容的真實性與準確性承擔全部責任」
- 建議將 AI 輔助生成的部分作為補充資料一併提交
換句話說：AI 可以幫你把糊的題目變好題目、生成完整草稿，但你必須讀過、改過、簽名負責。這份技能的目標就是提供符合此規範的 AI 協作 pipeline（詳見）。references/ai-disclosure.md
Summarized from past approved templates, the following practices best improve the pass rate:
-
Topics should be specific rather than broad. "How to reduce postoperative infections" will be rejected, while "Comparison of the effects of chewing gum vs. standard care on intestinal motility recovery in adults after abdominal surgery" will be approved.
-
The more transparent the search history, the better. Present it in a table: Database / Keywords / Initial number of articles / Exclusion criteria / Number of included articles.
-
Include at least 2–4 high-level evidence literatures. Focus on Oxford Level I–II (RCT, SR, MA). If literatures are extremely scarce, observational studies can be used, but this should be explained in the discussion section.
-
Attach complete CASP appraisal forms, instead of vague statements like "This literature has acceptable validity".
-
Case analyses must have real application records. Reviewers dislike seeing "Planned but not implemented" or "Application results are completely consistent with literatures" which are overly perfect narratives. Deviations are reasonable, and they should be explainable.
-
The discussion section should reflect reflection. Do not just say "Evidence-based results are great, we will do this from now on". Acknowledge local limitations, institutional culture, and individual differences.
-
New AI collaboration regulations (2026 version): The Taiwan Nurses Association and Taiwan Evidence-Based Nursing Association have explicitly allowed the use of generative AI to assist writing, with the following conditions:
- AI cannot be listed as an author
- Must proactively disclose the AI tool name, version, and specific usage methods in the research methods or acknowledgments section
- The author must review and revise each section of the AI-generated content
- The author must state "I have reviewed and revised the GenAI-generated content, and take full responsibility for the authenticity and accuracy of this article"
- It is recommended to submit the AI-assisted generated parts as supplementary materials
In other words: AI can help you turn vague topics into good ones and generate complete drafts, but you must read, revise, and sign to take responsibility. The goal of this skill is to provide an AI collaboration pipeline that complies with these regulations (seefor details).references/ai-disclosure.md
常見陷阱與錯誤
Common Traps and Mistakes
- PICO 的 Comparison 寫錯。Comparison 不是「無介入」，而是「現行照護標準」或「另一種介入」。
- 把實證讀書報告寫成一般文獻回顧。讀書報告要評讀、要綜整、要有結論建議，不是單純摘要文獻。
- 證據等級亂標。Oxford 2011 版是目前主流，不要用舊版 1–4 級。
- CASP 表直接打勾沒說明。每題都要寫簡短說明，特別是「不清楚」的項目。
- 個案資料暴露。姓名、病歷號、具體身分特徵一定要去識別化。
- 參考文獻沒用 APA 第 7 版。2020 年後一律用 APA 7，不要用 APA 6。
- Incorrect Comparison in PICO. Comparison is not "no intervention", but "current standard of care" or "another intervention".
- Writing an evidence-based reading report as a general literature review. Reading reports require appraisal, synthesis, and conclusion suggestions, not just summarizing literatures.
- Mislabeling evidence levels. The Oxford 2011 version is currently the mainstream; do not use the old 1–4 level version.
- Only checking boxes without explanations in CASP forms. Write brief explanations for each question, especially for "unclear" items.
- Exposing case data. Name, medical record number, and specific identity characteristics must be de-identified.
- Not using APA 7th edition for references. APA 7 has been required since 2020; do not use APA 6.
參考文件索引
Reference File Index
本技能附帶以下 reference 檔案，視需要載入：
- — 實證案例分析完整模板（最常用）
references/case-report-template.md - — 實證讀書報告模板
references/reading-report-template.md - — PICO 設定與文獻搜尋策略（含六件套、欄位碼、100–1000 校準、引文追蹤、DOI 驗證）
references/pico-and-search.md - — CASP 評讀表與 Oxford 證據等級
references/appraisal-tools.md - — 台灣護理報告標準句型庫
references/phrasing-bank.md - — 選題指引與地雷主題
references/topic-selection.md - — 10 個 subagent 分工與輸入/輸出契約（Python pipeline 對應）
references/subagent-roles.md - — 2026 版台灣護理 AI 使用規範與揭露/Audit/Subagent 紀錄的三份模板
references/ai-disclosure.md
看到使用者的需求後，先決定要讀哪幾份 reference，不要全部塞進脈絡。
This skill comes with the following reference files, which can be loaded as needed:
- — Complete template for evidence-based case analysis (most commonly used)
references/case-report-template.md - — Template for evidence-based reading report
references/reading-report-template.md - — PICO setup and literature search strategies (including six components, field codes, 100–1000 calibration, citation tracking, DOI verification)
references/pico-and-search.md - — CASP appraisal forms and Oxford evidence levels
references/appraisal-tools.md - — Standard sentence pattern bank for Taiwanese nursing reports
references/phrasing-bank.md - — Topic selection guidelines and high-risk topics
references/topic-selection.md - — Division of 10 subagents and input/output contracts (corresponding to Python pipeline)
references/subagent-roles.md - — 2026 Taiwan nursing AI usage regulations and three templates for disclosure/audit/subagent records
references/ai-disclosure.md
After seeing the user's needs, first decide which reference files to read, do not load all into the context.
最終輸出
Final Output
完成草稿後，提供：
- 完整的報告文件（建議用 .docx 格式，因為醫院多半要求紙本交件）
- 獨立的參考文獻清單（方便檢查 APA 格式）
- 搜尋歷程的表格（方便附錄）
- CASP 評讀表（方便附錄）
如果使用者還需要投影片版本（口頭報告用），提供 15 分鐘簡報的綱要：臨床情境 2 min → PICO 與搜尋 3 min → 證據摘要 5 min → 應用結果 4 min → 結論建議 1 min。
記住：這份技能的價值在於讓 AI 與人類護理師合作產出可通過審查的實證報告。依 2026 年台灣護理學會與台灣實證護理學會規範，AI 可協助生成完整草稿；人類護理師以 HITL checkpoint 逐節 audit、修訂、加入個人臨床觀察、簽名負責。最終送審文件需附 AI 使用揭露段落與 Audit 責任聲明（詳見 ）。
references/ai-disclosure.mdAfter completing the draft, provide:
- Complete report document (recommended in .docx format, as most hospitals require paper submissions)
- Independent reference list (convenient for checking APA format)
- Search history table (convenient for appendix)
- CASP appraisal forms (convenient for appendix)
If the user also needs a slide version (for oral reports), provide an outline for a 15-minute presentation: Clinical scenario 2 min → PICO and search 3 min → Evidence summary 5 min → Application results 4 min → Conclusion and suggestions 1 min.
Remember: The value of this skill is to enable AI and human nurses to collaborate to produce evidence-based reports that can pass reviews. According to 2026 regulations of the Taiwan Nurses Association and Taiwan Evidence-Based Nursing Association, AI can assist in generating complete drafts; human nurses act as HITL checkpoints to audit, revise, add personal clinical observations, and sign to take responsibility section by section. The final submission document must include an AI usage disclosure paragraph and an audit responsibility statement (see for details).
references/ai-disclosure.md