Nurse practitioner/physician collaborative models of care: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, many long-term care (LTC) homes experienced difficulties in providing residents with access to primary care, typically delivered by community-based family physicians or nurse practitioners (NPs). During the pandemic, legislative changes in Ontario, Canada enabled NPs to act in the role of Medical Directors thereby empowering NPs to work to their full scope of practice. Emerging from this new context, it remains unclear how NPs and physicians will best work together as primary care providers. NP/physician collaborative models appear key to achieving optimal resident outcomes. This scoping review aims to map available evidence on existing collaborative models of care between NPs and physicians within LTC homes. METHODS: The review will be guided by the research question, "What are the structures, processes and outcomes of collaborative models of care involving NPs and Physicians in LTC homes?" This scoping review will be conducted according to the methods framework for scoping reviews outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by Levac et al., Colquhoun et al., and Daudt et al., as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Statement. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase + Embase Classic, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED, CINAHL, Ageline, and Scopus), grey literature, and reference lists of included articles will be searched. English language studies that describe NP and physician collaborative models within the LTC setting will be included. DISCUSSION: This scoping review will consolidate what is known about existing NP/physician collaborative models of care in LTC homes. Results will be used to inform the development of a collaborative practice framework for long-term care clinical leadership.

What Do We Know About Nurse Practitioner/Physician Care Models in Long-Term Care: Results of a Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Due to the rise of the nurse practitioner (NP) role in long-term care settings, it is important to understand the underlying structures and processes that influence NP and physician care models. This scoping review aims to answer the question, "What are the structures, processes, and outcomes of care models involving NPs and physicians in long-term care (LTC) homes?" A secondary aim was to describe the structural enablers and barriers across care models. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Seven databases were searched. Studies that described NPs and physicians working in LTC were identified and included in the review. We stratified the findings by care model and synthesized using the Donabedian model, which evaluates health care quality based on 3 dimensions: structure, process, and outcome. We then categorized macro, meso, and micro structural enablers and barriers. RESULTS: Sixty papers were included in the review. The main structural influencers within 5 care models included policies on scope of practice, clarity of role description, and workload. A limited number of papers referred to the process of enabling the development of a working relationship. Thirty-five (49%) studies described resident, staff, and health system outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Although structural characteristics of NP and physician care models are described in-depth, there is less detail on the processes that occur within the NP and physician care models. We highlight structural barriers and enablers within the care models, allowing for recognition of the importance of organizational influence on the NP and physician relationship. Future work should focus on the processes of the relationships in the models by identifying the drivers and initiators of collaboration between NPs and physicians and how these relationships influence outcomes.

Exploring COVID-19 education to support vaccine confidence amongst the general adult population with special considerations for healthcare and long-term care staff: A scoping review.

Background: Despite the demonstrated efficacy of approved COVID-19 vaccines, high levels of hesitancy were observed in the first few months of the COVID-19 vaccines' rollout. Factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy are well-described in the literature. Among the various strategies for promoting vaccine confidence, educational interventions provide a foundationally and widely implemented set of approaches for supporting individuals in their vaccine decisions. However, the evidence around the measurable impact of various educational strategies to improve vaccine confidence is limited. We conducted a scoping review with the aim of exploring and characterizing educational interventions delivered during the pandemic to support COVID-19 vaccine confidence in adults. Methods: We developed a search strategy with a medical information scientist and searched five databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, as well as grey literature. We considered all study designs and reports. Interventions delivered to children or adolescents, interventions on non-COVID-19 vaccines, as well as national or mass vaccination campaigns without documented interaction(s) between facilitator(s) and a specific audience were excluded. Articles were independently screened by three reviewers. After screening 4602 titles and abstracts and 174 full-text articles across two rounds of searches, 22 articles met our inclusion criteria. Ten additional studies were identified through hand searching. Data from included studies were charted and results were described narratively. Results: We included 32 studies and synthesized their educational delivery structure, participants (i.e., facilitators and priority audience), and content. Formal, group-based presentations were the most common type of educational intervention in the included studies (75%). A third of studies (34%) used multiple strategies, with many formal group-based presentations being coupled with additional individual-based interventions (29%). Given the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccines and the unique current context, studies reported personalized conversations, question periods, and addressing misinformation as important components of the educational approaches reviewed. Conclusions: Various educational interventions were delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many initiatives involving multifaceted interventions utilizing both formal and informal approaches that leveraged community (cultural, religious) partnerships when developing and facilitating COVID-19 vaccine education. Train-the-trainer approaches with recognized community members could be of value as trust and personal connections were identified as strong enablers throughout the review.

Nurse practitioner and physician end-of-life home visits and end-of-life outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) play critical roles in supporting palliative and end-of-life care in the community. We examined healthcare outcomes among patients who received home visits from physicians and NPs in the 90 days before death. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked data of adult home care users in Ontario, Canada, who died between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019. Healthcare outcomes included medications for pain and symptom management, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalisations and a community-based death. We compared the characteristics of and outcomes in decedents who received a home visit from an NP, physician and both to those who did not receive a home visit. RESULTS: Half (56.9%) of adult decedents in Ontario did not receive a home visit from a provider in the last 90 days of life; 34.5% received at least one visit from a physician, 3.8% from an NP and 4.9% from both. Compared with those without any visits, having at least one home visit reduced the odds of hospitalisation and ED visits, and increased the odds of receiving medications for pain and symptom management and achieving a community-based death. Observed effects were larger in patients who received at least one visit from both. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond home care, receiving home visits from primary care providers near the end of life may be associated with better outcomes that are aligned with patients' preferences-emphasising the importance of NPs and physicians' role in supporting people near the end of life.