"I'm not being serviced; I'm being cared for": A mixed methods study of patients' and nurses' perceptions of community oncology nursing delivered by a Community Intervention Team.

PURPOSE: Many patients do not have access to community oncology nursing care in a primary setting and are completely reliant on tertiary hospital care. The aim of this study is to gain an understanding of oncology patients' and nurses' perceptions of community oncology nursing, delivered by an urban Community Intervention Team (CIT) in Ireland. METHODS: A descriptive, concurrent mixed methods approach was used which included semi-structured interviews with 14 oncology patients and an online survey of 27 hospital and community nurses. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Six broad themes captured patients' views. Right care related to patients' satisfaction with the range of care available. Right place reflected positive views of the physical setting and the option for homecare for those that needed it. Right time represented patients' comments about the increased appointment efficiency, flexibility, and availability of the service out-of-hours, compared to hospital-based care. Right people was based on patients' portrayals of community cancer nurses as professional, confident, friendly, reassuring and relatable. Integration and communication reflected the communication between the services and patients' impressions of how the services were integrated together. The last theme was improvements to the CIT service. Hospital nurses reported satisfaction with the CIT service while CIT nurses responses suggest the need for better communication with hospital partners. CONCLUSION: Patients had positive perceptions of the service provided by the CIT. Both hospital and community cancer nurses were satisfied with the service and reported that they would like to see an expansion of community oncology nursing services delivered by the CIT.

Who is failing who? A survey exploration of the barriers & enablers to accurate decision making when nursing students' competence is below required standards.

Healthcare practice supports the achievement of programme learning outcomes for nursing students internationally. Within this context the issue of reluctance to fail nursing students, when warranted, is extensively examined within the literature with few definitive solutions emerging. Little is known about the perceived barriers that exacerbate this reluctance, or about factors that might enable and support nurses to fail students. To address this issue our study employed a non-experimental cohort study of nurses (n = 365) from two large teaching hospitals in the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Preceptors in this study clearly enjoyed their role with students, and received positive feedback from students. However, findings suggest that preceptors require more support from colleagues in providing comprehensive evidence in assessment. They also require additional training for providing negative feedback to students. A collaborative approach to competence assessment is recommended, whereby the professional burden can be borne by the team, and where students can engage in a holistic, reflective, learning experience that will ultimately improve their competence.

Facilitators and barriers in expanding scope of practice: findings from a national survey of Irish nurses and midwives.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim was to examine current scope of practice among nurses and midwives in Ireland. The objectives were to describe practitioners' self-reported facilitators and barriers to expanding scope of practice and to develop a scope of practice barriers scale. BACKGROUND: Regulatory authorities permit practice expansion, so long as it falls within accepted parameters of scope of practice. Enduring difficulties in relation to scope of practice include the difficulty of balancing practice restriction with practice expansion. DESIGN: A postal survey design was used to examine registered nurses' and midwives' current scope of practice, including their experiences of facilitators and barriers to expanding practice. METHODS: A stratified random sample of registered nurses and midwives in Ireland was surveyed using the Scope-QB, a 19-item self-report scope of practice barriers scale. RESULTS: Based on a sample of 1010 respondents, the self-reported perceived barriers to practice expansion included fear of legal consequences, time restrictions and lack of remuneration. Professional satisfaction, patients' needs, organisational support and having access to continuing professional education were perceived as facilitators of practice expansion. Older nurses and midwives as well as nurses and midwives holding more senior promotional grades, such as clinical nurse manager grades, perceived fewer barriers than their younger and more junior counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and midwives continue to experience difficulties in relation to expanding their practice. Practitioners can operate to optimal scope of practice when practitioner-centred and workplace-based circumstances are optimal. The optimal circumstances for practice expansion exist when the facilitators of practice expansion outweigh the barriers. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Given the critical role that nurses and midwives play in modern health services, it is important that they are empowered and enabled to expand their practice and to work to full scope of practice when patient needs and service requirements warrant it.

'Am I covered?': an analysis of a national enquiry database on scope of practice.

AIM: Analysis of a national database of enquiries to a professional body pertaining to the scope of nursing and midwifery practice. BACKGROUND: Against a backdrop of healthcare reform is a demand for flexibility in nursing and midwifery roles with unprecedented redefinition of role boundaries and/or expansion. Guidance from professional regulatory bodies is being sought around issues of concern that are arising in practice. DESIGN: Qualitative thematic analysis. METHOD: The database of telephone enquiries (n = 9818) made by Registered Nurses and midwives to a national regulatory body (2001-2013) was subjected to a cleaning process and examined to detect those concerns that pertained to scope of practice. A total of 978 enquiries were subjected to thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Enquiries were concerned with three main areas: medication management, changing and evolving scope of practice and professional role boundaries. The context was service developments, staff shortages and uncertainty about role expansion and professional accountability. Other concerns related to expectations around responsibility and accountability for other support staff. CONCLUSION: Efforts by employers to maximize the skill mix of their staff and optimally deploy staff to meet service needs and/or address gaps in service represented the primary service context from which many enquiries arose. The greatest concern for nurses arises around medication management but innovation in healthcare delivery and the demands of service are also creating challenges for nurses and midwives. Maintaining and developing competence is a concern among nurses and midwives particularly in an environment of limited resources and where re-deployment is common.

Scope of practice decision making: findings from a national survey of Irish nurses and midwives.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim was to examine and describe aspects of the current scope of practice among nurses and midwives in Ireland. The objective was to describe practitioners' decision making associated with the scope of practice. BACKGROUND: Regulatory frameworks on the scope of practice describe the roles and activities an individual registrant is permitted to undertake in the course of professional practice. Research into the scope of practice has examined practitioners' perspectives on particular frameworks or their experiences of practice expansion, and suggests that frameworks are helpful in guiding practitioners; however, local circumstances and practitioner competence often determine scope of practice. DESIGN: A national postal survey of registered nurses and midwives was conducted to elicit self-reports of current scope of practice. METHODS: A stratified random sample of 2354 registered nurses and midwives in Ireland were surveyed using the Scope-Q, a 64-item self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: While over half of the respondents consulted others when making scope of practice decisions, the majority relied on their own professional judgement, acted only when they believed that they were competent to act, and recognised the limitations of their own competence. Although a small number of statistically significant associations were observed between respondents' age and self-reported scope of practice, respondents' current scope of practice was independent of either grade or gender. CONCLUSIONS: When making a decision about scope of practice, practitioners may consult other resources, including published frameworks, professional colleagues and line managers; however, most particularly, older, more experienced practitioners, rely on their own professional judgement when making scope of practice decisions. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: While published scope of practice frameworks guide practitioners on how they may act in circumstances of uncertainty, regulatory authorities should continue to emphasise individual accountability and self-reliance in everyday decision making, so that practitioners' actions are grounded in local circumstances and self-assessed practitioner competence.

Comparative analysis of nursing and midwifery regulatory and professional bodies' scope of practice and associated decision-making frameworks: a discussion paper.

AIMS: To review, discuss and compare nursing and midwifery regulatory and professional bodies' scope of practice and associated decision-making frameworks. BACKGROUND: Scope of practice in professional nursing and midwifery is an evolving process which needs to be responsive to clinical, service, societal, demographic and fiscal changes. Codes and frameworks offer a system of rules and principles by which the nursing and midwifery professions are expected to regulate members and demonstrate responsibility to society. DESIGN: Discussion paper. DATA SOURCES: Twelve scope of practice and associated decision-making frameworks (January 2000-March 2014). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Two main approaches to the regulation of the scope of practice and associated decision-making frameworks exist internationally. The first approach is policy and regulation driven and behaviour oriented. The second approach is based on notions of autonomous decision-making, professionalism and accountability. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but have similar elements with a different emphasis. Both approaches lack explicit recognition of the aesthetic aspects of care and patient choice, which is a fundamental principle of evidence-based practice. CONCLUSION: Nursing organizations, regulatory authorities and nurses should recognize that scope of practice and the associated responsibility for decision-making provides a very public statement about the status of nursing in a given jurisdiction.

Nurses', midwives' and key stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of a scope of nursing and midwifery practice framework.

AIM: This paper reports on the qualitative findings from a national review of a nursing and midwifery scope of practice framework. BACKGROUND: Scope of professional practice frameworks offers a system of rules and principles to regulate its members and demonstrate its responsibility to society. Key issues in reviewing the scope of practice include notions of specialist and advanced practice, accountability, autonomy, competence, supervision, continuing professional development and delegation. Evaluation of scope of practice frameworks has particular application value to nurses, midwives, regulatory bodies and healthcare employers across the globe. DESIGN: A mixed methods approach was used. This included a national survey of nurses and midwives and focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders. The qualitative data are reported in this paper. METHODS: Focus groups and interviews were conducted among a convenience purposive sample of key stakeholders, including nurses and midwives working in the widest range of services and settings in 2014. The participants contributed to thirteen focus groups and thirteen interviews. FINDINGS: Six global themes, as follows: Evolution of the nursing and midwifery professions and practice; Scope of practice: understanding and use; Expanding scope of practice; Professional competence; Practice setting and context; Reflections on the current framework. CONCLUSION: Practitioners understand the scope of professional practice and while some see it as empowering others see it as potentially restrictive. Nurses and midwives are generally willing to expand their scope of practice and see it as resulting in improved patient care, improvement in overall quality of standards and increased job satisfaction.