Search

Background: Advanced practice nursing (APN) roles offer improved access to care and increased quality and more timely care. Despite the advantages of APN roles, there is a disparity between European countries when it comes to implementing APN roles. Aim: To explore the implementation of APN roles in a range of European countries and to explore what factors facilitate or hinder the implementation of these roles. Methods: A case study evaluation of the process of implementing APN roles. The sample included four countries where APN roles were well developed (Ireland, Spain, Norway and the United Kingdom) and four where APN roles were implemented (Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus and Romania). Interviews were conducted with key informants (n = 28) from government departments, regulatory bodies, nursing associations and universities. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (CPREQ) has been used throughout. Limitations: The small number of countries when considering the size of the region and key informants representing the view of only three to four people in each country. Results: Four themes were identified, including the rationale for the development of the roles, influence, the evolutionary nature of role development and evidence. The data also revealed a mismatch between the perceptions of how the roles develop among the different countries in the early stages of implementation. Conclusion: Successful role implementation is dependent upon a tripartite approach between managers, practitioners and educators. An evolutionary approach to role development was used. Regulation and policy come later on in the process of implementation. Implications for nursing policy: APN policy should be based on patient needs rather than on the workforce or professional imperatives. The process of implementation can take 15–20 years in total. Recognising the importance of the relationships between service managers and educators is key to the early development of these roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This paper is a report of an ICSH review of policies and practices for internal quality control (IQC) policy for haematology cell counters among regulatory bodies, cell counter manufacturers and diagnostic laboratories. It includes a discussion of the study findings and links to separate ICSH guidance for such policies and practices. The application of internal quality control (IQC) methods is an essential pre‐requisite for all clinical laboratory testing including the blood count (Full Blood Count, FBC, or Complete Blood Count, CBC). Methods: The ICSH has gathered information regarding the current state of practice through review of published guidance from regulatory bodies, a questionnaire to six major cell counter manufacturers (Abbott Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Horiba Medical Diagnostic Instruments & Systems, Mindray Medical International, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics and Sysmex Corporation) and a survey issued to 191 diagnostic laboratories in four countries (China, Republic of Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom) on their IQC practice and approach to use of commercial IQC materials. Results: This has revealed diversity both in guidance and in practice around the world. There is diversity in guidance from regulatory organizations in regard to IQC methods each recommends, clinical levels to use and frequency to run commercial controls, and finally recommended sources of commercial controls. The diversity in practice among clinical laboratories spans the areas of IQC methods used, derivation of target values and action limits used with control materials, and frequency of running commercial controls materials. Conclusions: These findings and their implications for IQC Practice are discussed in this paper. They are used to inform a separate guidance document, which proposes a harmonized approach to address the issues faced by diagnostic laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a description of the ICSH guidance for internal quality control (IQC) policy for blood cell counters. It follows from and links to a separate ICSH review for such policies and practices. The ICSH has gathered information regarding the current state of practice through review of published guidance from regulatory bodies, a questionnaire to six major cell counter manufacturers and a survey issued to 191 diagnostic laboratories in four countries (China, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom) on their IQC practice and approach to the use of commercial IQC materials. This has revealed diversity both in guidance and in practice around the world. There is diversity in guidance from regulatory organizations in regard to IQC methods each recommends, clinical levels to use and frequency to run commercial controls, and finally recommended sources of commercial control materials. The diversity in practice among clinical laboratories spans the areas of IQC methods used, derivation of target values, and action limits used with commercial control materials, and frequency of running commercial controls materials. These findings and their implications for IQC Practice are addressed in this guidance document, which proposes a harmonized approach to address the issues faced by diagnostic laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]