Nurse practitioner interactions in acute and long-term care: an exploration of the role of knotworking in supporting interprofessional collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional care ensures high quality healthcare. Effective interprofessional collaboration is required to enable interprofessional care, although within the acute care  hospital setting interprofessional collaboration is considered suboptimal. The integration of nurse practitioner roles into the acute and long-term care settings is influencing enhanced care. What remains unknown is how the nurse practitioner role enacts interprofessional collaboration or enables interprofessional care to promote high quality care. The study aim was to understand how nurse practitioners employed in acute and long-term care settings enable interprofessional collaboration and care. METHOD: Nurse practitioner interactions with other healthcare professionals were observed throughout the work day. These interactions were explored within the context of "knotworking" to create an understanding of their social practices and processes supporting interprofessional collaboration. Healthcare professionals who worked with nurse practitioners were invited to share their perceptions of valued role attributes and impacts. RESULTS: Twenty-four nurse practitioners employed at six hospitals participated. 384 hours of observation provided 1,284 observed interactions for analysis. Two types of observed interactions are comparable to knotworking. Rapid interactions resemble the traditional knotworking described in earlier studies, while brief interactions are a new form of knotworking with enhanced qualities that more consistently result in interprofessional care. Nurse practitioners were the most common initiators of brief interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Brief interactions reveal new qualities of knotworking with more consistent interprofessional care results. A general process used by nurse practitioners, where they practice a combination of both traditional (rapid) knotworking and brief knotworking to enable interprofessional care within acute and long-term care settings, is revealed.

Resident and family perceptions of the nurse practitioner role in long term care settings: a qualitative descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Research evidence supports the positive impact on resident outcomes of nurse practitioners (NPs) working in long term care (LTC) homes. There are few studies that report the perceptions of residents and family members about the role of the NP in these settings. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of residents and family members regarding the role of the NP in LTC homes. METHODS: The study applied a qualitative descriptive approach. In-depth individual and focus group interviews were conducted with 35 residents and family members from four LTC settings that employed a NP. Conventional content analysis was used to identify themes and sub-themes. RESULTS: Two major themes were identified: NPs were seen as providing resident and family-centred care and as providing enhanced quality of care. NPs established caring relationships with residents and families, providing both informational and emotional support, as well as facilitating their participation in decision making. Residents and families perceived the NP as improving availability and timeliness of care and helping to prevent unnecessary hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The perceptions of residents and family members of the NP role in LTC are consistent with the concepts of person-centred and relationship-centred care. The relationships NPs develop with residents and families are a central means through which enhanced quality of care occurs. Given the limited use of NPs in LTC settings, there is an opportunity for health care policy and decision makers to address service inadequacies through strategic deployment of NPs in LTC settings. NPs can use their expert knowledge and skill to assist residents and families to make informed choices regarding their health care and maintain a positive care experience.

Nurse practitioner caseload in primary health care: Scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify recommendations for determining patient panel/caseload size for nurse practitioners in community-based primary health care settings. DESIGN: Scoping review of the international published and grey literature. DATA SOURCES: The search included electronic databases, international professional and governmental websites, contact with experts, and hand searches of reference lists. Eligible papers had to (a) address caseload or patient panels for nurse practitioners in community-based primary health care settings serving an all-ages population; and (b) be published in English or French between January 2000 and July 2014. Level one testing included title and abstract screening by two team members. Relevant papers were retained for full text review in level two testing, and reviewed by two team members. A third reviewer acted as a tiebreaker. Data were extracted using a structured extraction form by one team member and verified by a second member. Descriptive statistics were estimated. Content analysis was used for qualitative data. RESULTS: We identified 111 peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents. Most of the papers were published in Canada and the United States after 2010. Current methods to determine panel/caseload size use large administrative databases, provider work hours and the average number of patient visits. Most of the papers addressing the topic of patient panel/caseload size in community-based primary health care were descriptive. The average number of patients seen by nurse practitioners per day varied considerably within and between countries; an average of 9-15 patients per day was common. Patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender) and health conditions (e.g., multiple chronic conditions) appear to influence patient panel/caseload size. Very few studies used validated tools to classify patient acuity levels or disease burden scores. DISCUSSION: The measurement of productivity and the determination of panel/caseload size is complex. Current metrics may not capture activities relevant to community-based primary health care nurse practitioners. Tools to measure all the components of these role are needed when determining panel/caseload size. Outcomes research is absent in the determination of panel/caseload size. CONCLUSION: There are few systems in place to track and measure community-based primary health care nurse practitioner activities. The development of such mechanisms is an important next step to assess community-based primary health care nurse practitioner productivity and determine patient panel/caseload size. Decisions about panel/caseload size must take into account the effects of nurse practitioner activities on outcomes of care.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists: what is the quality of the evidence?

Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles. Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization). Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012. Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n = 11), NP-transition (n = 5), NP-inpatient (n = 2), CNS-outpatient (n = 11), CNS-transition (n = 13), and CNS-inpatient (n = 1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity. Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.