Search

Aim: To report the results of a mapping exercise by the European Federation of Nurses on current advanced practice nursing frameworks and developments across Europe. Design: Online, cross‐sectional, questionnaire study. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed among 35 national nurses' associations across Europe in March 2021. The questionnaire solicited input on 60 items concerning key features of advanced practice nursing, intending to map existing developments and better understand the current state of advanced practice nursing in Europe. Data analysis used descriptive statistics, including counts and percentages, tabulation; open‐text responses were handled with thematic synthesis techniques. Results: The definition, sense‐making and operationalization of advanced practice nursing vary across Europe. Important variations were noted in the definition and requirements of advanced practice nursing, resulting in different views on the competencies and scope of practice associated with this role. Importantly, the level of education and training required to qualify and practice as an advanced practice nurse varies across European countries. Furthermore, only 11 countries reported the existence of a national legislation establishing minimum educational requirements. Conclusion: Significant variation exists in how countries define advanced practice nursing and how it is regulated at academic and practice levels. More research is needed to clarify whether this variation results from designing models of advanced practice nursing that work in different contexts; and what impact a standardized regulatory framework could have to grow the volume of advanced practice nurses across Europe. Impact: The current paper exposes the lack of clarity on the development and implementation of advanced practice nursing across Europe. We found significant variation in the definition, recognition, regulation and education of advanced practice nurses. Our data are essential to policymakers, professional associations and employers to ensure a coordinated and systematic effort in the consistency and ongoing development of advanced practice nurses across Europe. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution applied; the participants were national nurses' associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To perform temporal validation of a risk prediction model for breast cancer‐related lymphoedema in the European population. Design: Temporal validation of a previously developed prediction model using a new retrospective cohort of women who had undergone axillary lymph node dissection between June 2018 and June 2020. Methods: We reviewed clinical records to identify women who did and did not develop lymphoedema within 2 years of surgery and to gather data regarding the variables included in the prediction model. The model was calibrated by calculating Spearman's correlation between observed and expected cases. Its accuracy in discriminating between patients who did versus did not develop lymphoedema was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: The validation cohort comprised 154 women, 41 of whom developed lymphoedema within 2 years of surgery. The value of Spearman's coefficient indicated a strong correlation between observed and expected cases. Sensitivity of the model was higher than in the derivation cohort, as was the value of the AUC. Conclusion: The model shows a good capacity to discriminate women at risk of lymphoedema and may therefore help in developing improved care pathways for individual patients. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: Identifying risk factors for lymphoedema secondary to breast cancer treatment is vital given its impact on women's physical and emotional well‐being. Impact: What problem did the study address? Risk of BCRL. What were the main findings? The prediction model has a good capacity to discriminate women at risk of lymphoedema. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? In clinical practice with women at risk of BCRL. Reporting Method: STROBE checklist. What Does this Paper Contribute to the Wider Global Clinical Community?: It presents a validated risk prediction model for BCRL. No Patient or Public Contribution: There was no patient or public contribution in the conduct of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives The aim of the Paediatric International Nursing Study was to explore the utility of key performance indicators in developing person-centred practice across a range of services provided to sick children. The objective addressed in this paper was evaluating the use of these indicators to benchmark services internationally. Background This study builds on primary research, which produced indicators that were considered novel both in terms of their positive orientation and use in generating data that privileges the patient voice. This study extends this research through wider testing on an international platform within paediatrics. Design The overall methodological approach was a realistic evaluation used to evaluate the implementation of the key performance indicators, which combined an integrated development and evaluation methodology. Methods The study involved children's wards/hospitals in Australia (six sites across three states) and Europe (seven sites across four countries). Qualitative and quantitative methods were used during the implementation process, however, this paper reports the quantitative data only, which used survey, observations and documentary review. Results The findings demonstrate the quality of care being delivered to children and their families across different international sites. The benchmarking does, however, highlight some differences between paediatric and general hospitals, and between the different key performance indicators across all the sites. Conclusions The findings support the use of the key performance indicators as a novel method to benchmark services internationally. Whilst the data collected across 20 paediatric sites suggest services are more similar than different, benchmarking illuminates variations that encourage a critical dialogue about what works and why. Relevance to clinical practice The transferability of the key performance indicators and measurement framework across different settings has significant implications for practice. The findings offer an approach to benchmarking and celebrating the successes within practice, while learning from partners across the globe in further developing person-centred cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As health services research (HSR) expands across the globe, researchers will adopt health services and health worker evaluation instruments developed in one country for use in another. This paper explores the cross-cultural methodological challenges involved in translating HSR in the language and context of different health systems. Objectives: To describe the pre-data collection systematic translation process used in a twelve country, eleven language nursing workforce survey. Design and settings: We illustrate the potential advantages of Content Validity Indexing (CVI) techniques to validate a nursing workforce survey developed for RN4CAST, a twelve country (Belgium, England, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland), eleven language (with modifications for regional dialects, including Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Spanish, and Swedish), comparative nursing workforce study in Europe. Participants: Expert review panels comprised of practicing nurses from twelve European countries who evaluated cross-cultural relevance, including translation, of a nursing workforce survey instrument developed by experts in the field. Methods: The method described in this paper used Content Validity Indexing (CVI) techniques with chance correction and provides researchers with a systematic approach for standardizing language translation processes while simultaneously evaluating the cross-cultural applicability of a survey instrument in the new context. Results: The cross-cultural evaluation process produced CVI scores for the instrument ranging from .61 to .95. The process successfully identified potentially problematic survey items and errors with translation. Conclusions: The translation approach described here may help researchers reduce threats to data validity and improve instrument reliability in multinational health services research studies involving comparisons across health systems and language translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]