Search

Summary Background Presentations to emergency departments (EDs) and patient acuity continue to increase. Whilst strategies to deliver safe patient care in the ED are evolving, emergency nurses need to be well educated through specialist qualifications to enable delivery of advanced patient care. This paper presents a comparative analysis of available international practice and competency standards for nurses graduating from emergency nursing courses in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Methods CINAHL, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase were searched for papers, published in English, using the terms: ‘emergency’, ‘accident and emergency’, ‘nursing’, ‘competency’, ‘practice standards’, ‘scope of practice’, ‘regulation’, and ‘specialist standards’. Secondary sources from relevant reference lists and professional websites were also searched. Results The standards from the five countries were common across five domains: clinical expertise, communication, teamwork, resources and environment, and legal. None of the standards were specific to the emergency nursing graduate, and there was variability in the level of expertise required for which the standards apply. Conclusions The available practice standards demonstrated some commonality. Consideration of the utility of a universal framework for informing the development of emergency nursing practice standards and emergency nursing curriculum for nurses wishing to specialise is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To identify the patient classification systems used to classify nursing intensity in the assessment of nursing staffing resources currently used in home health care, with a special emphasis on validity, reliability and staff allocation. Scoping review of internationally published and grey literature, based on a methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Searches of the electronic databases Cinahl, Medline, Embase and SweMed, the websites Google and Google Scholar and hand searches of reference lists occurred. Eligibility criteria included (A) a focus on patient classification systems measuring nursing intensity and workload in home health care and (B) published in English between January 2007 and March 2019. In level one testing two team members screened titles and abstracts, in level two testing two team members determined which papers should undergo a full text review. Data were extracted using structured extraction by one team member and verified by two other members. Thirteen peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents were identified, from Canada, Ireland, the UK, the USA, Scotland, Turkey and the Netherlands. Four patient classification systems had been tested for both validity and reliability. Validity was tested through face validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity or content validity index. Reliability was tested through stability, internal consistency, observer agreement or inter rater reliability. One patient classification system had been tested only for reliability, through interrater reliability and observer agreement. Two patient classification systems had been evaluated through summative evaluation; one qualitatively through focus group interviews and one through semi-structured interviews. Only one patient classification system had been validity and reliability tested and evaluated. Overall, the patient classification systems in the included papers (13) were considered to have benefits and to be appropriate for the measurement of patients' needs, workload and allocation of staff, although specific information was not always given. Little has been published on validity or reliability tested patient classification systems linked to staffing allocation in home health care in the past decade. Limited research was seen where a patient classification system was considered to be fully operational in home health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]