Search

Background: A variety of advanced practice nursing roles and titles have proliferated in response to the changing demands of a population characterized by increasing age and chronic illness. Whilst similarly identified as advanced practice roles, they do not share a common practice profile, educational requirements or legislative direction. The lack of clarity limits comparative research that can inform policy and health service planning. Aims: To identify advanced practice roles within nursing titles employed in New Zealand and practice differences between advanced practice and other roles. Method: Replicating recent Australian research, 3255 registered nurses/nurse practitioners in New Zealand completed the amended Advanced Practice Delineation survey tool. The mean domain scores of the predominant advanced practice position were compared with those of other positions. Differences between groups were explored using one‐way ANOVA and post hoc between group comparisons. Results: Four nursing position bands were identified: nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, domain‐specific and registered nurse. Significant differences between the bands were found on many domain scores. The nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist bands had the most similar practice profiles, nurse practitioners being more involved in direct care and professional leadership. Conclusions: Similar to the position of clinical nurse consultant in Australia, those practicing as clinical nurse specialists were deemed to reflect the threshold for advanced practice nursing. The results identified different practice patterns for the identified bands and distinguish the advanced practice nursing roles. Implications for nursing policy: By replicating the Australian study of Gardener et al. (2016), this NZ paper extends the international data available to support more evidence‐based nursing workforce planning and policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nursing and midwifery are demanding professions. Efforts to understand the health consequences and workforce needs of these professions are urgently needed. Using a novel electronic approach, the Nurses and Midwives e-cohort Study (NMeS) aims to investigate longitudinally Australian and New Zealand nurses' and midwives' work/life balance and health. This paper describes NMeS participation; provides key baseline demographic, workforce and health indicators; compares these baseline descriptions with external norms; and assesses the feasibility of the electronic approach. From 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2008, nurses in Australia and New Zealand, and midwives in Australia were invited to participate. Potential participants were directed to a purpose-built NMeS Internet site, where study information was provided and consent sought. Once obtained, a range of standardized tools combined into one comprehensive electronic questionnaire was elicited. Overall, 7633 (2.3%) eligible nurses and midwives participated (6308 from Australia and 1325 from New Zealand) from a total pool of 334 400. Age, gender, occupational and health profiles were similar between countries and to national figures. However, some differences were noted; for instance, Queensland participants were over-represented, while Victorian and South Australian participants were under-represented, and 28.2% of Australians were in high strain positions compared with 18.8% of New Zealanders. Using an internationally novel web-based approach, a large cohort, which appears generally similar to population norms, has been established. Provided participant retention is adequate, the NMeS will provide insight into understanding the drivers of nurses' and midwives' workforce retention and work-related factors associated with their health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]