Search

Background: The Thrive program is an evidenced-based care model for Medicaid-insured adults in the hospital-to-home transition. A substantial portion of Thrive participants live with serious mental illness (SMI), yet Thrive's efficacy has not been tested among these patients., Purpose: To compare 30-day postdischarge outcomes between Thrive participants with and without SMI and explore Thrive's appropriateness and acceptability among participants with SMI., Methods: We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of 252 (62 with SMI) Thrive participants discharged from an academic medical center from February 2021 to August 2023. Interviews of participants with SMI were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis., Results: Participants with and without SMI experienced similar rates of 30-day readmissions, emergency room visits, and postdischarge follow-up visits, with these differences being nonsignificant. Participants with SMI were highly satisfied with Thrive's care coordination and attention to social needs, yet participants suggested stronger connections to behavioral health care., Conclusions: Participants with and without SMI benefit equitably from Thrive., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest for the current study., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: People diagnosed with a co-occurring serious mental illness (SMI; ie, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia) but hospitalized for a nonpsychiatric condition experience higher rates of readmissions and other adverse outcomes, in part due to poorly coordinated care transitions. Current hospital-to-home transitional care programs lack a focus on the integrated social, medical, and mental health needs of these patients. The Thrive clinical pathway provides transitional care support for patients insured by Medicaid with multiple chronic conditions by focusing on posthospitalization medical concerns and the social determinants of health. This study seeks to evaluate an adapted version of Thrive that also meets the needs of patients with co-occurring SMI discharged from a nonpsychiatric hospitalization., Objective: This study aimed to (1) engage staff and community advisors in participatory implementation processes to adapt the Thrive clinical pathway for all Medicaid-insured patients, including those with SMI; (2) examine utilization outcomes (ie, Thrive referral, readmission, emergency department [ED], primary, and specialty care visits) for Medicaid-insured individuals with and without SMI who receive Thrive compared with usual care; and (3) evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and cost-benefit of an adapted Thrive clinical pathway that is tailored for Medicaid-insured patients with co-occurring SMI., Methods: This study will use a prospective, type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial design. We will randomize the initiation of Thrive referrals at the unit level. Data collection will occur over 24 months. Inclusion criteria for Thrive referral include individuals who (1) are Medicaid insured, dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare, or Medicaid eligible; (2) reside in Philadelphia; (3) are admitted for a medical diagnosis for over 24 hours at the study hospital; (4) are planned for discharge to home; (5) agree to receive home care services; and (6) are aged ≥18 years. Primary analyses will use a mixed-effects negative binomial regression model to evaluate readmission and ED utilization, comparing those with and without SMI who receive Thrive to those with and without SMI who receive usual care. Using a convergent parallel mixed methods design, analyses will be conducted simultaneously for the survey and interview data of patients, clinicians, and health care system leaders. The cost of Thrive will be calculated from budget monitoring data for the research budget, the cost of staff time, and average Medicaid facility fee payments., Results: This research project was funded in October 2023. Data collection will occur from April 2024 through December 2025. Results are anticipated to be published in 2025-2027., Conclusions: We anticipate that patients with and without co-occurring SMI will benefit from the adapted Thrive clinical pathway. We also anticipate the adapted version of Thrive to be deemed feasible, acceptable, and appropriate by patients, clinicians, and health system leaders., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06203509; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06203509., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/64575., (©J Margo Brooks Carthon, Heather Brom, Kelvin Eyram Amenyedor, Michael O Harhay, Marsha Grantham-Murillo, Jacqueline Nikpour, Karen B Lasater, Daniela Golinelli, Pamela Z Cacchione, Amanda P Bettencourt. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 12.11.2024.)

Nursing burnout remains a public health crisis. However, few stakeholders have considered the disproportionate toll of burnout among nurses of color, including nurses identifying as Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native American. We convened a one-day conference, titled Solutions to Health Inequities and Nurses' Emotional Exhaustion (SHINE), to begin identifying contributing factors and solutions to burnout amongst nurses of color. SHINE included plenaries, small group discussions, and breakout sessions with nearly 40 expert stakeholders from around the country. We employed a deliberative dialogue (DD) methodology to identify key takeaways and implications for research, practice, and policy. High-priority solutions included: improving the work environment and nurse staffing, reducing stigma against nurses seeking mental healthcare, addressing workplace racism as a root cause of nurse burnout, and increasing support for nurses experiencing racism at work. Key priorities identified through SHINE offer a roadmap for nurse leaders to address burnout through an equity-centered lens., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Over 12 million Americans are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. These individuals experience over twice as many hospitalizations for chronic diseases such as coronary artery disease and diabetes compared with Medicare-only patients. Nurse practitioners (NPs) are well-positioned to address the care needs of dually-enrolled patients, yet NPs often work in unsupportive clinical practice environments. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between the NP primary care practice environment and hospitalization disparities between dually-enrolled and Medicare-only patients with chronic diseases., Methods: Using secondary cross-sectional data from the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire and Medicare claims files, we examined 135,648 patients with coronary artery disease and/or diabetes (20.0% dually-eligible, 80.0% Medicare-only), cared for in 450 practices employing NPs across 4 states (PA, NJ, CA, FL) in 2015. We compared dually-enrolled patients' odds of being hospitalized when cared for in practice environments characterized as poor, mixed, and good based on practice-level Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire scores., Results: After adjusting for patient and practice characteristics, dually-enrolled patients in poor practice environments had the highest odds of being hospitalized compared with their Medicare-only counterparts [odds ratio (OR): 1.48, CI: 1.37, 1.60]. In mixed environments, dually-enrolled patients had 27% higher odds of a hospitalization (OR: 1.27, CI: 1.12, 1.45). However, in the best practice environments, hospitalization differences were nonsignificant (OR: 1.02, CI: 0.85, 1.23)., Conclusions: As policymakers look to improve outcomes for dually-enrolled patients, addressing a modifiable aspect of care delivery in NPs' clinical practice environment is a key opportunity to reduce hospitalization disparities., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The increase in new registered nurses is expected to outpace retirements, yet health care systems continue to struggle with recruiting and retaining nurses., Objective: To examine the top contributing factors to nurses ending health care employment between 2018 and 2021 in New York and Illinois., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed survey data (RN4CAST-NY/IL) from registered nurses in New York and Illinois from April 13 to June 22, 2021. Differences in contributing factors to ending health care employment are described by nurses' age, employment status, and prior setting of employment and through exemplar nurse quotes., Main Outcomes and Measures: Nurses were asked to select all that apply from a list of contributing factors for ending health care employment, and the percentage of nurse respondents per contributing factor were reported., Results: A total of 7887 nurses (mean [SD] age, 60.1 [12.9] years; 7372 [93%] female) who recently ended health care employment after a mean (SD) of 30.8 (15.1) years of experience were included in the study. Although planned retirement was the leading factor (3047 [39%]), nurses also cited burnout or emotional exhaustion (2039 [26%]), insufficient staffing (1687 [21%]), and family obligations (1456 [18%]) as other top contributing factors. Among retired nurses, 2022 (41%) ended health care employment for reasons other than planned retirement, including burnout or emotional exhaustion (1099 [22%]) and insufficient staffing (888 [18%]). The age distribution of nurses not employed in health care was similar to that of nurses currently employed in health care, suggesting that a demographically similar, already existing supply of nurses could be attracted back into health care employment., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, nurses primarily ended health care employment due to systemic features of their employer. Reducing and preventing burnout, improving nurse staffing levels, and supporting nurses' work-life balance (eg, childcare needs, weekday schedules, and shorter shift lengths) are within the scope of employers and may improve nurse retention.

COVID-19 mortality disparities for socially vulnerable patients, including individuals facing higher levels of poverty, housing insecurity, and limited transportation, have been linked to the quality of hospitals where they received care. Few studies have examined the specific aspects of hospitals, such as nursing care quality, that may underlie disparate outcomes. Recent studies suggest that nursing resources in the pre-pandemic period were associated with mortality during the COVID-19 public health emergency. In this study, we examined the association between social vulnerability, the nurse work environment, and inpatient mortality among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with COVID-19. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of linked survey data collected from nurses working in New York and Illinois, Medicare claims, American Hospital Association Annual Survey data, and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Higher mortality rates were observed among patients in the highest quartile of social vulnerability compared to the lowest (6870 [25.8%] vs 5019 [19.1%]; P < .001). Using multivariable regression modeling, a statistically significant interaction was found between the highest SVI quartile and the nurse work environment (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; P < .05), implying that the effect of a higher quality nurse work environment on mortality was decidedly greater for patients in the highest quartile (odds ratio = 0.86 × 0.94 = 0.80) compared to patients in the lowest quartile (OR, 0.94). Post-hoc analyses demonstrated that hundreds of COVID-19 related deaths among the most socially vulnerable patients may have been avoided if all hospitals had a high-quality nurse work environment. Strengthening the quality of nurse work environments may help to reduce health disparities and should be considered in public health emergency planning, specifically in hospitals serving socially vulnerable communities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Increasing diversity in the nurse practitioner (NP) workforce is key to improving outcomes among patients who experience health inequities. However, few studies to date have examined the specific mechanisms by which NPs from diverse backgrounds address inequities in care delivery., Purpose: To explore Black NPs' efforts in addressing inequities, and the facilitators and barriers they face in doing so., Methodology: We conducted focus groups and interviews of Black NPs ( N = 16) in the greater Philadelphia area in early 2022, just following the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and the social unrest of the early 2020s. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis., Results: Emergent themes included: Strategies Utilized to Address Health Inequities ; Burnout & the Minority Tax ; Risks & Rewards of Taking a Stance ; and Uneven Promises of Organizational Engagement . Nurse practitioners prioritized patient-centered, culturally congruent care, taking additional time to explore community resources and learn about patients' lives to facilitate care planning. Participants advocated to administrators for resources to address inequities while simultaneously navigating organizational dynamics, microaggressions, and racism. Finally, NPs identified organizational-level barriers, leading to emotional exhaustion and several participants' intent to leave their roles., Conclusions: Black NPs use a myriad of strategies to improve equity, yet frequently face substantial barriers and emotional exhaustion in doing so with little change to the inequities in care., Implications: The NP workforce has a critical role to play in reducing health inequities. The strategies outlined by Black NPs in this study offer a roadmap for all clinicians and health care organizations to prioritize equity in care delivery., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 American Association of Nurse Practitioners.)

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most prevalent heart disease in the United States, and it disproportionately affects Black compared to White patients. Regular primary care and dyslipidemia screening and management are essential for optimal CAD care. Nurse practitioners (NPs) increasingly provide primary care services, though unsupportive practice environments may constrain their ability to do so., Purpose: To examine whether disparities in lipid screening between Black and White patients with CAD were associated with the NP practice environment scores., Methods: Cross-sectional survey data from NPs in primary care practices and Medicare claims were linked to evaluate outcomes among 111,911 CAD patients (94% White, 6% Black) across 456 primary care practices in four states (California, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) in 2016. The NP-Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire, which provides a score on the supportiveness of a respondent's practice, was used to evaluate the NP practice environment. Multilevel regression models that accounted for patient and practice characteristics were used to evaluate the study aim., Results: Compared to White patients with CAD, Black patients with CAD less frequently received annual lipid screening (77.0% vs. 70.6%; p < .001). In logistic regression models accounting for patient and practice characteristics, for every standard deviation increase in the practice environment score, Black patients experienced a 5% increase in odds of receiving lipid screening., Conclusion: Investing in the NP practice environment, including increasing NP role visibility and strengthening relationships with physicians and administrators, may narrow racial disparities in CAD management.

Background: Although more people than ever are seeking primary care, the ratio of primary care providers to the population continues to rapidly decline. As such, registered nurses (RNs) are taking on increasingly central roles in primary care delivery. Yet little is known about their characteristics, their work environments, and the extent to which they experience poor job outcomes such as nurse burnout., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics of the primary care RN workforce and analyze the association of the nurse work environment with job outcomes in primary care., Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of survey data representing N = 463 RNs who worked in 398 primary care practices, including primary care offices, community clinics, retail/urgent care clinics, and nurse-managed clinics. Survey questions included measures of the nurse work environment and levels of burnout, job dissatisfaction, and intent to leave., Discussion: Approximately one-third of primary care RNs were burnt out and dissatisfied with their jobs, with the highest risk of these outcomes among RNs in community clinics. Community clinic RNs were also significantly more likely to be Black or Hispanic/Latino, hold a Bachelor of Science in Nursing, and speak English as a second language (all p < .01). Across all settings, better nurse work environments were significantly associated with lower levels of burnout and job dissatisfaction (both p < .01)., Conclusion: Primary care practices must be equipped to support their RN workforce. Adequate nursing resources are especially needed in community clinics, as patients receiving primary care in these settings frequently face structural inequities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this manuscript is to examine traditional models of leadership in nursing, and to provide a roadmap and specific recommendations for nurses at all levels to lead our profession through the next decade in achieving health equity. We examine current leadership frameworks in nursing and discuss ways to contemporize these frameworks to more explicitly center the expertise of clinicians and communities from historically marginalized backgrounds. Next, we examine the racial, gender, and able-bodied biases that impact nurses, and call upon nurses to examine and dismantle these biases. We discuss the roles of health systems and academic organizations in developing inclusive leaders, including through community engagement and true service-learning partnerships. Finally, we provide a set of recommendations for all nursing leaders across career stages to embrace inclusivity as they work to improve health equity., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced awareness that the health of populations is inextricably linked around the globe. Nurses require increased knowledge and preparation in global health. Nursing educators need examples of how to improve content in the curriculum., Aims: The purpose of this paper is to describe reconceptualization of a master's level nursing course entitled "Population Health in a Global Society" to include global health competencies., Methods: We identified four global health competencies within the following three domains: globalization of health and healthcare; collaboration, partnering, and communication; and sociocultural and political awareness., Implementation: We utilized guest lectures, a panel discussion, discussion forums and an independent research assignment. The methods used were well received by students, and the content delivered improved their perceived knowledge in global population health., Discussion: The global health domains and competencies provided a roadmap for improving our course to focus on population health from a global perspective., Conclusion: In order to prepare nurses to contribute to global population health, population health courses should integrate global health competencies. The content of the revised course will better prepare nurses who will practice in a wide variety of settings and is designed for interdisciplinary education., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Evidence exists on racial and gender disparities in chronic pain management among veterans. Most literature has described physicians' disparate opioid prescribing patterns, although it is unknown if prescribing disparities exist among nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) or among prescription of nonopioid analgesic strategies., Purpose: To identify patient characteristics associated with opioid and nonopioid prescriptions among Veterans Affairs (VA) chronic pain patients by primary care physicians, NPs, and PAs., Methodology: We used data from the VA's Survey of Health care Experience of Patients and Corporate Data Warehouse from October 2015 to September 2016. Outcomes included opioid and nonopioid analgesic prescriptions. Patient characteristics included race/ethnicity, gender, education level, age, and clinical characteristics (comorbidities, self-reported health, and self-reported mental health). Logistic regression was performed to test for associations of patient characteristics with outcomes., Results: Patients who were White, male, age 41-64 years, and with no postsecondary education had higher odds of receiving an opioid prescription (all p -values ≤ .01), whereas patients who were Black, female, and <65 years old had higher odds of a nonopioid prescription (all p -values < .01). Having 5+ comorbidities and fair/poor self-reported health increased the odds of opioid and nonopioid prescriptions (all p -values < .01)., Conclusions: Disparities in race, gender, and educational level significantly affect how primary care NPs, PAs, and physicians manage chronic pain., Implications: NPs and other primary care providers should pursue training opportunities to identify and mitigate potential biases that may affect their practice. Future research should take an intersectional lens in examining the source of chronic pain disparities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 American Association of Nurse Practitioners.)

Background: Chronic pain disproportionately impacts veterans and is often treated in primary care, where physician shortages in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) healthcare system are well documented. Nurse practitioners (NPs) may represent a solution to the care shortage; however, concerns of NP opioid overprescribing have led to NP practice and prescribing restrictions in individual VHA facilities and at the state level. Little is known regarding the prescribing patterns of NPs and physician assistants (PAs) for veterans with chronic pain in the VHA., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare opioid and non-opioid prescribing patterns of physicians, NPs, and PAs for chronic pain patients at VHA centers., Methods: We used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Survey of Healthcare Experience of Patients and Corporate Data Warehouse from October 2015 to September 2016. Patient medical records for the year were analyzed by provider type (physician, NP, or PA) for differences in providers' rates of prescribing opioid and non-opioid medications, as well as characteristics of the opioid prescriptions (e.g., high daily morphine milligram equivalent [90 MME/day] dose, long-term opioid therapy [90 days])., Results: Medical records of a total of 39,936 patients were included. In FY 2016, 55% of patients received one opioid prescription, whereas 83.8% received one non-opioid prescription. Compared to patients of NPs and PAs, patients of physicians had higher odds of receiving opioid (vs. NPs: OR = 1.13, p < 0.01; vs. PAs: OR = 1.16, p < 0.01) and non-opioid prescriptions (vs. NPs: OR=1.08, p = 0.02; vs. PAs: OR=1.20, p < 0.01) after adjusting for patient characteristics. There were no differences in high MME/day dose ( p = 0.59) or long-term opioid therapy ( p = 0.99)., Conclusion: In a national sample of veterans with chronic pain, NPs and PAs did not have higher odds of opioid prescribing. Concerns of NP or PA opioid overprescribing may be addressed by considering evidence that patients of these providers are not at higher odds of receiving an opioid prescription.

Background: Deployment of nurse practitioners (NPs) to health professional shortage areas (HPSA) may help to address challenges in patient access to care. However, restrictive scope of practice imposed by regulatory and state legislative bodies or unsupportive organizational climates in clinical practice settings may constrain NP care delivery and perpetuate lower assessments of quality of care provided in these underserved communities., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the associations between state NP scope of practice regulations, NP practice environment, and self-reported ratings of quality of care in primary care practices located in HPSAs., Methods: This was a cross-sectional analysis of data from 1,972 participant NPs practicing across 1,711 primary care practices in six states representing full (Arizona and Washington), reduced (Pennsylvania and New Jersey), and restricted (California and Florida) NP scope of practice regulation. Survey data were merged with the Area Health Resource Files to determine practices located in primary care HPSAs. Logistic regression models estimated the relationship between quality ratings, scope of practice regulations, and practice environment scores while accounting for NP and practice characteristics., Results: Among all included NPs, 95.7% rated their practice as having "excellent," "very good," or "good" quality of care. Practice environments with higher scores had higher ratings of quality of care after accounting for NP and practice characteristics (OR = 3.73, 95% CI: 2.84, 4.89)., Conclusion: Unsupportive clinical practice environments were associated with lower ratings of quality of care in HPSAs, suggesting that improvements in working conditions may be necessary adjuncts to greater deployment of NPs to improve primary care in shortage areas.

Background: Chronic pain affects 100 million Americans and is most often treated in primary care, where the health care provider shortage remains a challenge. Nurse practitioners (NPs) represent a growing solution, yet their patterns of chronic pain management are understudied. Additionally, prescriptive authority limitations in many states limit NPs from prescribing opioids and often exist due to concerns of NP-driven opioid overprescribing. Little evidence on NP pain management prescribing patterns exists to address these issues., Objective: Systematic review, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, to examine opioid and nonopioid prescribing patterns of physicians, NPs, and physician assistants (PAs) in primary care. Eligible studies scored ≥60% on the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklist., Data Sources: Searches within PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science., Conclusions: Three themes were elucidated: 1) opioid prescribing in primary care, 2) similarities and differences in opioid prescribing by provider type, and 3) nonopioid pain management strategies. All provider groups had similar opioid prescribing patterns, although NPs and PAs may be slightly less likely to prescribe opioids than physicians. Although some studies suggested that NPs/PAs had higher opioid prescribing rates compared with physicians, methodological flaws may undermine these conclusions. Evidence is also lacking on nonopioid prescribing patterns across disciplines., Implications for Practice: Nurse practitioner/PA prescriptive authority limitations may not be as effective of a solution for addressing opioid overprescribing as transdisciplinary interventions targeting the highest subset of opioid prescribers. Future research should examine prescribing patterns of nonopioid, including nonpharmacologic, therapies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 American Association of Nurse Practitioners.)

The human papillomavirus (HPV) causes many anogenital and oral cancers affecting young adults in the United States. Vaccination during adolescence can prevent HPV-associated cancers, but vaccine uptake among adolescents is low and influenced by factors serving as barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination. In this systematic review, we synthesized research using the socioecological framework model to examine individual-level, relationship-level, community-level, and societal-level factors that influence HPV vaccine initiation and completion among US adolescents. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used to guide the methodology for this review. An electronic search was conducted in January 2020 using PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Central, Scopus, and American Psychological Association PsycInfo databases. The Joanna Briggs Institute tools were used to assess the quality for the 57 studies included in this review. The most consistent influences of HPV vaccination included age at vaccination, awareness, and knowledge about HPV vaccination, socioeconomic status, insurance status, race/ethnicity, and preventative care behaviors at the individual level. Provider recommendation, familial/peer support of vaccination, and parental health behaviors were influences at the relationship level. Although fewer findings elucidated community-level and societal-level influences, high-poverty areas, high-risk communities with large proportions of racial/ethnic minority groups, healthcare facilities servicing children, and combined health policies appear to serve as facilitators of HPV initiation and completion. Findings from this review can inform culturally relevant and age-specific interventions and multi-level policies aiming to improve HPV vaccination coverage in the United States., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Challenges exist in caring for chronic pain patients, such as preventing opioid-related adverse events, a lack of available non-pharmacologic alternatives, and limitations in prescriptive authority. Nurse practitioners are well-suited to manage chronic pain due to their holistic approach to care and growing numbers in primary care. Yet little is known about the chronic pain care given by NPs. As such, the purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of NPs who manage chronic pain, and to examine how these experiences impact NP prescribing patterns in chronic pain management., Methods: We developed the 31-item NP Chronic Pain Prescribing Practices survey. We collected data from N = 128 NPs at the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) conference. Pearson chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were utilized for statistical analysis., Results: NPs reported high levels of agreement with nearly all the presented challenges. MSN-prepared NPs were more likely than DNP-prepared NPs to report difficulty in managing pain (x 2 = 4.2, p = .04). There were no differences in prescription of chronic pain therapies between NPs of varying practice authority statuses. NPs in specialty care settings were more likely to utilize opioids (x 2 = 13.6, p < .01), while primary care NPs were significantly more likely to use NSAIDs (x 2 = 13.5, p < .01) and Tylenol (x 2 = 3.9, p = .05)., Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate significant challenges NPs face in chronic pain management. More research is needed to better understand the complexities associated with chronic pain care given by NPs in order to effectively manage chronic pain while still preventing opioid-related adverse events., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Pain Management Nursing. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: The field of HIV research has grown over the past 40 years, but there remains an urgent need to address challenges that cisgender women living in the United States experience in the HIV neutral status care continuum, particularly among women such as Black women, who continue to be disproportionately burdened by HIV due to multiple levels of systemic oppression. We used a social ecological framework to provide a detailed review of the risk factors that drive the women's HIV epidemic. By presenting examples of effective approaches, best clinical practices, and identifying existing research gaps in three major categories (behavioral, biomedical, and structural), we provide an overview of the current state of research on HIV prevention among women. To illustrate a nursing viewpoint and take into account the diverse life experiences of women, we provide guidance to strengthen current HIV prevention programs. Future research should examine combined approaches for HIV prevention, and policies should be tailored to ensure that women receive effective services that are evidence-based and which they perceive as important to their lives., (Copyright © 2021 Association of Nurses in AIDS Care.)

In June 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics released its new policy statement recommending a full-time registered nurse in every school building. Indeed, increasing attention is being focused on school nursing, in part due to recent legislation, including the Affordable Care Act, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, and the Every Student Succeeds Act. Advocating for nursing practice within an education setting presents unique challenges in terms of changing the common perception of school nurses, variances in funding streams for school nursing, and the ability to link health outcomes with educational outcomes. The purpose of this article is to discuss the rationale for a school nurse in every building along with presenting action steps that individual and groups of school nurses can utilize to advocate for a full-time registered nurse in every school.