State Laws and Regulations Addressing Nurse-Initiated Protocols and Use of Nurse-Initiated Protocols in Emergency Departments: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

INTRODUCTION: State regulations may impede the use of nurse-initiated protocols to begin life-saving treatments when patients arrive to the emergency department. In crowding and small-scale disaster events, this could translate to life and death practice differences. Nevertheless, research demonstrates nurses do utilize nurse-initiated protocols despite legal prohibitions. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of the state regulatory environment as expressed in nurse practice acts and interpretive statements prohibiting the use of nurse-initiated protocols with hospital use of nurse-initiated protocols in emergency departments. METHODS: A cross-sectional approach was used with a nationwide survey. The independent variable categorized the location of the hospital in states that have a protocol prohibition. Outcomes included protocols for blood laboratory tests, X-rays, over-the-counter medication, and electrocardiograms. A second analysis was completed with New York State alone because this state has the strongest language prohibiting nurse-initiated protocols. RESULTS: A total of 350 participants returned surveys from 48 states and the District of Columbia. A hospital was more likely to have policies supporting nurse-initiated protocols if they were not in a state with the scope of practice prohibitions. Four categories emerged such as advantages, approval, prohibition, and conditions under which the protocols can be used. Prohibitive language was associated with less protocol use for emergency care. CONCLUSION: State scope of practice inconsistencies create misalignment with emergency nurse education and training, which may impede timely care and contribute to inequalities and inefficiencies in emergency care. In addition, prohibitive language places practicing nurses responding to emergencies in crowded work environments at risk.

Registered nurse scope of practice and ED complaint-specific protocols.

INTRODUCTION: The use of complaint-specific protocols (CSPs) by emergency registered nurses (RNs) can improve ED efficiency. However, RN practice is influenced by regulatory environments that may facilitate or inhibit the use of protocols. The purpose of this policy analysis was to explore the language of state boards of nursing scope-of-practice documents related to the use of RN-initiated CSPs in the ED setting. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was used to investigate how the RN's scope of practice relates to the use of CSPs in ED settings across states. Data were collected from state boards of nursing Web site documents. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged: cautiously within scope, intentionally vague/silent, and outside scope. Seven states (Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma) were identified where RN-initiated CSPs appear to be currently outside the RN's scope of practice. Therefore 18% of the US population, or 55,973,900 people, resides in states where CSPs are not allowed. DISCUSSION: State-to-state inconsistencies in the RN's scope of practice may interfere with the implementation of practices that enhance ED efficiency. RNs in all states must ensure that they have the requisite knowledge, skill, and documented competency to implement CSPs, if supported by their employing facility. Efforts to standardize ED RN education and policy are warranted. Continued research is needed assess the impact of RN-initiated CSPs on the efficiency of ED care.