Search

Aim: The aim of the study was to identify the nature and extent of scientific research addressing continuing education for advanced practice nurses. Design: A scoping review. Review Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews. Data Sources: Electronic search was conducted on 17 September 2023 via CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and the Joanna Briggs Institute's Evidence‐Based Practice Database for research articles published between 2012 and 2023. Results: Nineteen papers were included in this review. Scientific research on continuing education for advanced practice nursing roles (i.e. nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist) has primarily been conducted in the United States and mostly addresses online‐delivered continuing education interventions for clinical care competency. Most of the interventions targeted nurse practitioners. Conclusion: Continuing education has a pivotal role in supporting advanced practice nursing competency development. In addition to clinical care, future continuing education research should focus on other advanced practice nursing competencies, such as education, leadership, supporting organizational strategies, research and evidence implementation. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: Continuing education programmes for advanced practice nurses should be rigorously developed, implemented and evaluated to support the quality and effectiveness of patient care. Impact: Continuing education for advanced practice nursing roles is an understudied phenomenon. This review highlights future research priorities and may inform the development of continuing education programmes. Reporting Method: PRISMA‐ScR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To synthesize literature examining (1) rural hospital or obstetric unit closures as a social determinant of maternal/infant health outcomes and (2) closures as a social determinant of racial/ethnic disparities in maternal/infant health outcomes. Design: Scoping review. Data Sources: MEDLINE, OVID/Embase and CINAHL were searched systematically to identify sources from 31 July 2003 to 31 July 2023. The Arksey and O'Malley methodology for scoping reviews was used. Results: Four studies from the United States and Australia documented the impact of rural hospital or obstetric unit closures on maternal/infant health outcomes, such as increased births in hospitals without obstetric units, out‐of‐hospital births or babies born before arrival, preterm birth, infant mortality and sociocultural risks that contribute to clinical risk. No eligible studies investigated hospital or obstetric unit closure as a social determinant of racial disparities in rural maternal/infant health outcomes. Conclusion: Despite significant racial and ethnic rural maternal health disparities, associations between rural closures and maternal health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities are understudied. More research is needed to understand the extent to which rural closures, a social determinant of health, could disproportionately, negatively affect the health of racially and ethnically minoritized women. Implications for the Profession and Patient Care: Rural women have a greater risk of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity compared with urban women, and the impact of rural closures on racial and ethnic maternal health disparities is not well documented. Research about the impact of rural closures on maternal health disparities could inform policy to assure essential obstetric care is available for rural populations globally. Impact: Findings provide a call to action for research to understand relationships between rural closures and racial and ethnic maternal health disparities, which is especially important for serving rural Non‐Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: (1) To identify, evaluate and summarize evidence about the objectives and characteristics of mentoring programmes for specialized nurses (SNs) or nurse navigators (NNs) and advanced practice nurses (APNs) and (2) to identify the effectiveness of these programmes. Design: A systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines. Data Sources: From November 2022 until 7 December 2022, four databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library. Review Methods: Study selection was performed independently by two researchers. Disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached. Data extraction was undertaken for included studies. Data synthesis was conducted using narrative analysis. Quality appraisal was performed using the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results: Twelve articles were included, all of which focused on mentoring programmes for APNs. Different forms of mentorship (e.g. (in)formal mentorship, work shadowing, workshops) were reported. Studies reported positive outcomes on job retention (n = 5), job satisfaction (n = 6), skills improvement (n = 7), satisfaction with the programme (n = 7) and confidence improvement (n = 4) among participants of mentoring programmes. Conclusion: There is a lack of uniformity and consistency in various elements of mentoring programmes. Further research is needed to develop mentoring programmes for both APNs and SNs/NNs in a systematic and theoretically underpinned manner. It is necessary to establish a thorough evaluation methodology, preferably using a mixed methods design that includes both a qualitative process evaluation and a comprehensive outcome evaluation using validated questionnaires, taking into account the NN/APN, the interprofessional team and organizational level. Impact: The synthesis of evidence may be useful to organizations developing and implementing mentoring programmes for both SN/NN and APN. The development of a mentoring programme for nursing experts should be considered a complex intervention that requires theoretical frameworks and contextual considerations. No Patient or Public Contribution: Not applicable, as no patients or public were involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]