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]

Objective This paper examines how negative experiences with the health-care system create a lack of confidence in receiving medical care in seven countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Methods The empirical analysis is based on data from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey 2007, with nationally representative samples of adults aged 18 and over. For the analysis of the experience of cost barriers and confidence in receiving medical care, we conducted pairwise comparisons of group percentages as well as country-wise multivariate logistic regression models. Results Individuals who have experienced cost barriers show a significantly lower level of confidence in receiving safe and quality medical care than those who have not. This effect is most pronounced in the United States, where people who have foregone necessary treatment because of costs are four times as likely to lack confidence as individuals without the experience of cost barriers (adjusted odds ratio 4.00). In New Zealand, Germany, and Canada, individuals with the experience of cost barriers are twice as likely to report low confidence compared with those without this experience (adjusted odds ratios of 1.95, 2.19 and 2.24, respectively). In the Netherlands and UK, cost barriers are only a marginal phenomenon. Conclusions The fact that the experience of financial barriers considerably lowers confidence indicates that financial incentives, such as private co-payments, have a negative effect on overall public support and therefore on the legitimacy of health-care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]