American Association of Nurse Practitioners Research Agenda, 2023-2028.

ABSTRACT: This report highlights the 2023-2028 American Association of Nurse Practitioners Research Agenda (AANP-RA), which focuses on the research goals of AANP as an organization and is based on its mission and strategic plan. The purpose of the AANP Research Agenda is to outline research priorities that advance the AANP Strategic Plan and concurrently address gaps in nursing science. American Association of Nurse Practitioners supports research studies that are rigorously designed and conducted using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches, as well as implementation science with the potential to positively impact both NP practice and patient health outcomes. The AANP-RA strategy is guided by the PEARL acronym: examining NP Practice, Education, policy Advocacy, Research, and Leadership. A discussion of each area is presented along with suggested topics.

Advancement of global health: Recommendations from the Global Advisory Panel on the Future of Nursing & Midwifery (GAPFON®).

AIMS: To discuss nurses' contributions to global health through their participation in GAPFON®. DESIGN: Discussion paper that reviews literature related to global health, global nursing and midwifery based on the contributions of the GAPFON® report. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of electronic databases was conducted for published articles during 2014-2018 in English focusing on the main themes of the GAPFON® report. Manual searches of relevant journals and internet sites were also undertaken. RESULTS: Recommendations and strategies were discussed that could have an impact on the advancement of the nursing profession's contribution to global health based on the GAPFON® report outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: GAPFON® provides a framework to synergize and converge our activities to address professional issues around the globe, through implementation of the suggested strategies identified in the GAPFON® report. GAPFON® has engaged with nursing and midwifery leaders around the globe to determine both the most pressing health issues and professional issues in regions and the report is a synthesis of all the data, reflecting regional and global challenges. This article explores ways of how the report can be used as a basis for engagement with decision makers in global health. CONCLUSION: Advances in the professional areas embedded in the GAPFON® Model are expected to lead to capacity building, evidence-based practice and ultimately improved quality of global health care. The strategies for implementation identified by regional stakeholders can have an impact on the global health agenda by focusing on nurses and midwives as the drivers of this change.

The Care and Learn Model: a Practice and Research Model for Improving Healthcare Quality and Outcomes.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conducted internal work to formulate a model that could be used to analyze the Agency's research portfolio, identify gaps, develop and prioritize its research agenda, and evaluate its performance. Existing models described the structure and components of the healthcare system. Instead, we produced a model of two functions: caring and learning. Central to this model is the commitment to and participation of people-patients, communities, and health professionals-and the organization of systems to respond to people's problems using evidence. As a product of caring, the system produces evidence that is then used to adapt and continuously improve this response, closely integrating caring and learning. The Agency and the health services research and improvement communities can use this Care and Learn Model to frame an evidence-based understanding of vexing clinical, healthcare delivery, and population health problems and to identify targets for investment, innovation, and investigation.

Learning Collaboratives: Insights And A New Taxonomy From AHRQ's Two Decades Of Experience.

Learning collaboratives are increasingly used as mechanisms to support and hasten the diffusion and implementation of innovation, clinical evidence, and effective models of care. Factors contributing to the collaboratives' success or failure are poorly understood. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has sponsored collaboratives for nearly two decades to support improvements in health care quality and value by accelerating the diffusion and implementation of innovation. We examined AHRQ's experience with these collaboratives to characterize their attributes, identify factors that might contribute to their success or failure, and assess the challenges they encountered. Building on the literature and insights from AHRQ's experience, we propose a taxonomy that can offer guidance to decision makers and funders about the factors they should consider in developing collaboratives and planning their evaluation, as well as to researchers who seek to conduct research that will ultimately help decision makers make better investments in diffusing innovation and evidence.

A review of instruments to measure interprofessional team-based primary care.

Interprofessional team-based care is increasingly regarded as an important feature of delivery systems redesigned to provide more efficient and higher quality care, including primary care. Measurement of the functioning of such teams might enable improvement of team effectiveness and could facilitate research on team-based primary care. Our aims were to develop a conceptual framework of high-functioning primary care teams to identify and review instruments that measure the constructs identified in the framework, and to create a searchable, web-based atlas of such instruments (available at: http://primarycaremeasures.ahrq.gov/team-based-care/ ). Our conceptual framework was developed from existing frameworks, the teamwork literature, and expert input. The framework is based on an Input-Mediator-Output model and includes 12 constructs to which we mapped both instruments as a whole, and individual instrument items. Instruments were also reviewed for relevance to measuring team-based care, and characterized. Instruments were identified from peer-reviewed and grey literature, measure databases, and expert input. From nearly 200 instruments initially identified, we found 48 to be relevant to measuring team-based primary care. The majority of instruments were surveys (n = 44), and the remainder (n = 4) were observational checklists. Most instruments had been developed/tested in healthcare settings (n = 30) and addressed multiple constructs, most commonly communication (n = 42), heedful interrelating (n = 42), respectful interactions (n = 40), and shared explicit goals (n = 37). The majority of instruments had some reliability testing (n = 39) and over half included validity testing (n = 29). Currently available instruments offer promise to researchers and practitioners to assess teams' performance, but additional work is needed to adapt these instruments for primary care settings.

Hospital Readmission Rates in U.S. States: Are Readmissions Higher Where More Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions Cluster?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: This study examines small area variations in readmission rates to assess whether higher readmission rate in an area is associated with higher clusters of patients with multiple chronic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: The study uses hospital discharge data of adult (18+) patients in 6 U.S. states for 2009 from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, linked to contextual and provider data from Health Resources and Services Administration. A multivariate cross sectional design at primary care service area (PCSA) level is used. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Adjusting for area characteristics, the readmission rates were significantly higher in PCSAs having higher proportions of patients with 2-3 chronic conditions and those with 4+ chronic conditions, compared with areas with a higher concentration of patients with 0-1 chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Using small area analysis, the study shows that areas with higher concentration of patients with increased comorbid conditions are more likely to have higher readmission rates.

Effects of hyperbaric oxygen on symptoms and quality of life among service members with persistent postconcussion symptoms: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Improvement has been anecdotally observed in patients with persistent postconcussion symptoms (PCS) after mild traumatic brain injury following treatment with hyperbaric oxygen (HBO). The effectiveness of HBO as an adjunctive treatment for PCS is unknown to date. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety of and to estimate the efficacy for symptomatic outcomes from standard PCS care alone, care supplemented with HBO, or a sham procedure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial of 72 military service members with ongoing symptoms at least 4 months after mild traumatic brain injury enrolled at military hospitals in Colorado, North Carolina, California, and Georgia between April 26, 2011, and August 24, 2012. Assessments occurred before randomization, at the midpoint, and within 1 month after completing the interventions. INTERVENTIONS: Routine PCS care was provided in specialized clinics. In addition, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to 40 HBO sessions administered at 1.5 atmospheres absolute (ATA), 40 sham sessions consisting of room air at 1.2 ATA, or no supplemental chamber procedures. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) served as the primary outcome measure. A change score of at least 2 points on the RPQ-3 subscale (range, 0-12) was defined as clinically significant. Change scores from baseline were calculated for the RPQ-3 and for the total RPQ. Secondary measures included additional patient-reported outcomes and automated neuropsychometric testing. RESULTS: On average, participants had sustained 3 lifetime mild traumatic brain injuries; the most recent occurred 23 months before enrollment. No differences were observed between groups for improvement of at least 2 points on the RPQ-3 subscale (25% in the no intervention group, 52% in the HBO group, and 33% in the sham group; P = .24). Compared with the no intervention group (mean change score, 0.5; 95% CI, -4.8 to 5.8; P = .91), both groups undergoing supplemental chamber procedures showed improvement in symptoms on the RPQ (mean change score, 5.4; 95% CI, -0.5 to 11.3; P = .008 in the HBO group and 7.0; 95% CI, 1.0-12.9; P = .02 in the sham group). No difference between the HBO group and the sham group was observed (P = .70). Chamber sessions were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among service members with persistent PCS, HBO showed no benefits over sham compressions. Both intervention groups demonstrated improved outcomes compared with PCS care alone. This finding suggests that the observed improvements were not oxygen mediated but may reflect nonspecific improvements related to placebo effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01306968.