Professional regulation in the digital era: A qualitative case study of three professions in Ontario, Canada.

Technology is transforming service delivery and practice in many regulated professions, altering required skills, scopes of practice, and the organization of professional work. Professional regulators face considerable pressure to facilitate technology-enabled work while adapting to digital changes in their practices and procedures. However, our understanding of how regulators are responding to technology-driven risks and the impact of technology on regulatory policy is limited. To examine the impact of technology and digitalization on regulation, we conducted an exploratory case study of the regulatory bodies for nursing, law, and social work in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected over two phases. First, we collected documents from the regulators' websites and regulatory consortiums. Second, we conducted key informant interviews with two representatives from each regulator. Data were thematically analyzed to explore the impact of technological change on regulatory activities and policies and to compare how regulatory structure and field shape this impact. Five themes were identified in our analysis: balancing efficiency potential with risks of certain technological advances; the potential for improving regulation through data analytics; considering how to regulate a technologically competent workforce; recalibrating pandemic emergency measures involving technology; and contemplating the future of technology on regulatory policy and practice. Regulators face ongoing challenges with providing equity-based approaches to regulating virtual practice, ensuring practitioners are technologically competent, and leveraging regulatory data to inform decision-making. Policymakers and regulators across Canada and internationally should prioritize risk-balanced policies, guidelines, and practice standards to support professional practice in the digital era.

Cannabis use in a Canadian long-term care facility: a case study.

BACKGROUND: Following the legalization of cannabis in Canada in 2018, people aged 65 + years reported a significant increase in cannabis consumption. Despite limited research with older adults regarding the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, there is increasing interest and use among this population, particularly for those who have chronic illnesses or are at end of life. Long-term Care (LTC) facilities are required to reflect on their care and policies related to the use of cannabis, and how to address residents' cannabis use within what they consider to be their home. METHODS: Using an exploratory case study design, this study aimed to understand how one LTC facility in western Canada addressed the major policy shift related to medical and non-medical cannabis. The case study, conducted November 2021 to August 2022, included an environmental scan of existing policies and procedures related to cannabis use at the LTC facility, a quantitative survey of Healthcare Providers' (HCP) knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to cannabis, and qualitative interviews with HCPs and administrators. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. RESULTS: A total of 71 HCPs completed the survey and 12 HCPs, including those who functioned as administrators, participated in the interview. The largest knowledge gaps were related to dosing and creating effective treatment plans for residents using cannabis. About half of HCPs reported providing care in the past month to a resident who was taking medical cannabis (54.9%) and a quarter (25.4%) to a resident that was taking non-medical cannabis. The majority of respondents (81.7%) reported that lack of knowledge, education or information about medical cannabis were barriers to medical cannabis use in LTC. From the qualitative data, we identified four key findings regarding HCPs' attitudes, cannabis access and use, barriers to cannabis use, and non-medical cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: With the legalization of medical and non-medical cannabis in jurisdictions around the world, LTC facilities will be obligated to develop policies, procedures and healthcare services that are able to accommodate residents' use of cannabis in a respectful and evidence-informed manner.

Protecting the public interest while regulating health professionals providing virtual care: A scoping review.

Technology is transforming service delivery in many health professions, particularly with the rapid shift to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health profession regulators must navigate legal and ethical complexities to facilitate virtual care while upholding their mandate to protect the public interest. The objectives of this scoping review were to examine how the public interest is protected when regulating health professionals who provide virtual care, discuss policy and practice implications of virtual care, and make recommendations for future research. We searched six multidisciplinary databases for academic literature published in English between January 2015 and May 2021. We also searched specific databases and websites for relevant grey literature. After screening, 59 academic articles and 18 grey literature sources were included for analysis. We identified five key findings: the public interest when regulating health professionals providing virtual care was only implicitly considered in most of the literature; when the public interest was discussed, the dimension of access was emphasized; criticism in the literature focused on social ideologies driving regulation that may inhibit more widespread use of virtual care; subnational licensure was viewed as a barrier; and the demand for virtual care during COVID-19 catalyzed licensure and scope of practice changes. Overall, virtual care introduces new areas of risk, potential harm, and inequity that health profession regulators need to address as technology continues to evolve. Regulators have an essential role in providing clear standards and guidelines around virtual care, including what is required for competent practice. There are indications that the public interest concept is evolving in relation to virtual care as regulators continue to balance public safety, equitable access to services, and economic competitiveness.

Barriers and facilitators to opioid agonist therapy in rural and remote communities in Canada: an integrative review.

BACKGROUND: People living in rural and remote communities in Canada are often disproportionately impacted by opioid use disorder. When compared to urban centres, rural and remote populations face additional barriers to treatment, including geographical distance as well as chronic shortages of health care professionals. This integrative review of the literature was conducted to explore the facilitators and barriers of OAT in rural and remote Canadian communities. METHODS: A search of the literature identified relevant studies published between 2001 and 2021. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 26 scholarly peer-reviewed publications, which explored specific barriers and facilitators to rural and remote OAT in Canada, along with two reports and one fact sheet from the grey literature. Most of the scholarly articles were descriptive studies (n = 14) or commentaries (n = 9); there were only three intervention studies. Facilitators and barriers to OAT programs were organized into six themes: intrapersonal/patient factors, social/non-medical program factors, family/social context factors (including community factors), infrastructure/environmental factors, health care provider factors, and system/policy factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although themes in the literature resembled the social-ecological framework, most of the studies focused on the patient-provider dyad. Two of the most compelling studies focused on community factors that positively impacted OAT success and highlighted a holistic approach to care, nested in a community-based holistic model. Further research is required to foster OAT programs in rural and remote communities.

The Nurse Practitioner Workforce in Western Canada: A Cross-Sectional Practice Analysis Comparison.

Regular examination of health workforce data is essential given the pace of health system and legislative changes. Health workforce studies pertaining to nurse practitioner (NP) practice are needed to examine the gaps between work activities, policy, human resource supply, or for population needs. Jurisdictional comparison studies can provide essential information about NP practice for governments to respond to health workforce deficiencies or engage in service planning. In Canada, there is limited provincial-territorial jurisdictional NP workforce data to support health planning or policy change. This descriptive cross-sectional study was to examine the similarities and differences in practice patterns of Canadian NPs. In 2016 and 2017, an electronic survey was sent to all 852 registered NPs in three Canadian provinces, yielding a large convenience sample of 375 NP respondents. The results of this study underscore the value of NPs' extensive registered nurse expertize as well as their ability to serve diverse patient populations, work in varied healthcare settings, and provide care to medically complex patients. The study findings also show that NPs in all three jurisdictions work to their full scope of practice, in both rural and urban settings. This study is the first to compare NP workforce data across multiple Canadian jurisdictions simultaneously. Studies of this type are valuable tools for understanding the demographics, education, integration, and employment activities of NPs and can aid governments in addressing workforce planning.

"Guarding their practice": a descriptive study of Canadian nursing policies and education related to medical cannabis.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, federal regulations allow Nurse Practitioners (NPs) to authorize medical cannabis. Nursing regulatory bodies, however, have been hesitant to include medical cannabis within NPs' scope of practice. As the interest in cannabis increases, NPs have the potential to play a pivotal role in promoting the safe and appropriate use of cannabis. This study aimed to: summarize nursing policies in Canada related to medical cannabis; explore the perspective of nursing regulatory bodies regarding practice and policy issues related to medical cannabis; and examine the inclusion of medical cannabis content within Canadian NP curricula. METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted that comprised three phases. The first phase reviewed nursing regulatory bodies' existing policies related to medical cannabis. In the second phase, practice consultants from nursing regulatory bodies were interviewed regarding policies and practices issues related to medical cannabis. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. The third phase was a national survey of NP program coordinators regarding inclusion of cannabis in curricula. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. RESULTS: Of the 12 nursing regulatory bodies in Canada, only 7 had policies or statements related to cannabis, with only Ontario allowing NPs to authorize medical cannabis. There was confusion among practice consultants regarding the role of nurses in the administration of medical cannabis and several barriers were identified regarding nursing engagement in care related to medical cannabis, including lack of knowledge and clinical guidelines. 60% of NP programs included cannabis in their curricula, however, less than half addressed the risks and benefits of medical cannabis and dosing and administration protocols. Limited faculty expertise was a barrier to including cannabis content in NP curricula. CONCLUSION: Nursing regulatory bodies must be proactive in developing policies and educational resources that will support nurses in providing safe and informed care related to cannabis. To ensure patients using medical cannabis receive consistent and safe care from nurses, harmonized regulations and policies are needed across all jurisdictions. Education programs must also provide updated knowledge and training for both registered nurses and NPs that will support them in providing non-judgemental and evidence-based care to the growing number of individuals using cannabis.

A National Needs Assessment of Canadian Nurse Practitioners Regarding Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes.

Introduction: In Canada, the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR) has given nurse practitioners (NPs) the power to authorize cannabis for therapeutic purposes (CTP) to eligible patients. This expansion in NPs' scope of practice underscores the importance of delivering balanced, evidence-based education on cannabis to NPs. The aim of this national study was to assess NPs' knowledge and practice gaps related to CTP to inform the development of future education resources that increase NPs' clinical competence and improve patient care related to medical cannabis. Methods: This is a quantitative, descriptive exploratory design study. A national online survey of NPs was conducted from August 2013 to June 2014. NPs were recruited through email lists held by numerous Canadian nursing organizations. The survey was adapted from a previous national survey that assessed CTP educational needs among Canadian physicians. The survey assessed NPs' knowledge, experience, barriers, and attitudes related to CTP as well as preferred format for future CTP education. Results: The sample consisted of 182 NPs from across Canada. The largest knowledge gap was related to dosing and creating effective treatment plans for patients using CTP. The majority of respondents (76.3%) ranked the need for education on CTP to be either strong or very strong. Over half (57%) reported that they would be comfortable authorizing medical cannabis through the ACMPR; this number increased to 64% if they were to receive appropriate education. Conclusion: Nursing regulatory organizations, in partnership with academic institutions and government agencies, must work toward the development of educational and clinical competencies specific to CTP. Tailored education programs are needed to address the knowledge gaps held by NPs and the clinical barriers they face to including CTP as part of their care.