Search

The global COVID‐19 pandemic challenged the world—how it functions, how people move in the social worlds and how government/government services and people interact. Health services, operating under the principles of new public management, have undertaken rapid changes to service delivery and models of care. What has become apparent is the mechanisms within which contemporary health services operate and how services are not prioritising the person at the centre of care. Person‐centred care (PCC) is the philosophical premise upon which models of health care are developed and implemented. Given the strain that COVID‐19 has placed on the health services and the people who deliver the care, it is essential to explore the tensions that exist in this space. This article suggests that before the pandemic, PCC was largely rhetoric, and rendered invisible during the pandemic. The paper presents an investigation into the role of PCC in these challenging times, adopting a Foucauldian lens, specifically governmentality and biopolitics, to examine the policies, priorities and practical implications as health services pivoted and adapted to changing and acute demands. Specifically, this paper draws on the Australian experience, including shifting nursing workforce priorities and additional challenges resulting from public health directives such as lockdowns and limitations. The findings from this exploration open a space for discussion around the rhetoric of PCC, the status of nurses and that which has been lost to the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Identify and map international evidence regarding innovations led by or involving advanced practice nurses in response to COVID‐19. Background: COVID‐19 necessitated unprecedented innovation in the organization and delivery of healthcare. Although advanced practice nurses have played a pivotal role during the pandemic, evidence of their contributions to innovations has not been synthesized. Evidence is needed to inform policies, practices, and research about the optimal use of advanced practice nurses. Methods: A scoping review was conducted and reported using the PRISMA‐ScR checklist. Electronic databases were searched for peer‐reviewed articles published between January 2020 and December 2021. Papers were included that focused on innovations emerging in response to COVID‐19 and involved advanced practice nurses. Results: Fifty‐one articles were included. Four themes were identified including telehealth, supporting and transforming care, multifaceted approaches, and provider education. Half of the articles used brief and mostly noncomparative approaches to evaluate innovations. Conclusion: This is the first synthesis of international evidence examining the contributions of advanced practice nurses during the pandemic. Advanced practice nurses provided leadership for the innovation needed to rapidly respond to healthcare needs resulting from COVID‐19. Innovations challenged legislative restrictions on practice, enabled implementation of telehealth and new models of care, and promoted evidence‐informed and patient‐centered care. Implications for practice: Advanced practice nurses led, designed, implemented, and evaluated innovations in response to COVID‐19. They facilitated the use of telehealth, supported or transformed models of care, and enabled health providers through education, mentorship, and mental health support. Implication for policy: Advanced practice nurses are a critical resource for innovation and health system improvement. Permanent removal of legislative and regulatory barriers to their full scope of practice is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Deaths in care homes and "at home" are anticipated to account for a third of UK deaths by 2040. Currently, palliative and end of life care are not part of statutory training in care homes. Reflective practice is a tool that can facilitate practice‐based learning and support. Following a feasibly study to test "online" supportive conversations and reflection sessions (OSCaRS) to support care home staff in relation to death/dying during the first months of the COVID pandemic, a one‐year practice development follow‐up project was undertaken with the aim to create a team of NHS/specialist palliative care (SPC)‐based facilitators to lead and support OSCaRS provision in up to 50 care homes in one region in Scotland—the focus of this paper. Methods: Forty care home managers attended an on‐line session explaining the project, with a similar session held for 19 NHS/SPC‐based nurses external to care homes. Those interested in facilitating OSCaRS then attended three education sessions. Data collected: records of all activities; reflective notes on OSCaRS organised/delivered; a summary of each OSCaRS reflection/learning points; final interviews with NHS/SPC trainee facilitators. Results: A total of 19 NHS/SPC facilitators delivered one or more OSCaRS in 22 participating care homes. However, as of January 2022 only six trained facilitators remained active. Out of the 158 OSCaRS arranged, 96 took place with a total of 262 staff attending. There were three important aspects that emerged: the role, remit, and resources of NHS/SPC supporting OSCaRS; requirements within care homes for establishing OSCaRS; and, the practice‐based learning topics discussed at each OSCaRS. Conclusion: Attempts to establish a team of NHS/SPC facilitators to lead OSCaRS highlights that end of life care education in care homes does not clearly fall within the contractual remit of either group or risks being missed due to more pressing priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]