Search

Aim: We aimed to differentiate the practice patterns of nurses in specialized and advanced roles in a cross-sectional study., Method: Canadian nurses completed a self-report questionnaire (June 2017-September 2017). Demographic data and time spent in five domains of advanced practice were compared across three nurse groups. Regression analysis examined factors associated with domain involvement., Results: Respondents ( n = 1,107) represented all provinces/territories, including 396 specialized nurses (SNs), 211 clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) and 490 nurse practitioners (NPs). Nurses across all groups were the most involved in direct comprehensive care and the least involved in research. NPs were more involved in direct comprehensive care compared to CNSs ( p < 0.001) and SNs ( p < 0.001). CNSs were more involved than SNs and NPs in support of systems, education, research and professional leadership ( p < 0.001). Role type, years as an advanced practice nurse and specialist certification were modest predictors of domain involvement., Conclusion: Distinguishing how specialized and advanced nursing roles contribute to healthcare can inform policies to support their optimal utilization in healthcare systems., (Copyright © 2023 Longwoods Publishing.)

Background: Advanced practice nurses (e.g., nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists) have been introduced internationally to increase access to high quality care and to tackle increasing health care expenditures. While randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews have demonstrated the effectiveness of nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist roles, their cost-effectiveness has been challenged. The poor quality of economic evaluations of these roles to date raises the question of whether current economic evaluation guidelines are adequate when examining their cost-effectiveness., Objective: To examine whether current guidelines for economic evaluation are appropriate for economic evaluations of nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist roles., Methods: Our methodological review was informed by a qualitative synthesis of four sources of information: 1) narrative review of literature reviews and discussion papers on economic evaluation of advanced practice nursing roles; 2) quality assessment of economic evaluations of nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist roles alongside randomised controlled trials; 3) review of guidelines for economic evaluation; and, 4) input from an expert panel., Results: The narrative literature review revealed several challenges in economic evaluations of advanced practice nursing roles (e.g., complexity of the roles, variability in models and practice settings where the roles are implemented, and impact on outcomes that are difficult to measure). The quality assessment of economic evaluations of nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist roles alongside randomised controlled trials identified methodological limitations of these studies. When we applied the Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada to the identified challenges and limitations, discussed those with experts and qualitatively synthesized all findings, we concluded that standard guidelines for economic evaluation are appropriate for economic evaluations of nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist roles and should be routinely followed. However, seven out of 15 current guideline sections (describing a decision problem, choosing type of economic evaluation, selecting comparators, determining the study perspective, estimating effectiveness, measuring and valuing health, and assessing resource use and costs) may require additional role-specific considerations to capture costs and effects of these roles., Conclusion: Current guidelines for economic evaluation should form the foundation for economic evaluations of nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist roles. The proposed role-specific considerations, which clarify application of standard guidelines sections to economic evaluation of nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist roles, may strengthen the quality and comprehensiveness of future economic evaluations of these roles., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) are major providers of transitional care. This paper describes a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CNS transitional care., Methods: We searched 10 electronic databases, 1980 to July 2013, and hand-searched reference lists and key journals for RCTs that evaluated health system outcomes of CNS transitional care. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Quality of Health Economic Studies tools. The quality of evidence for individual outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We pooled data for similar outcomes., Results: Thirteen RCTs of CNS transitional care were identified (n = 2463 participants). The studies had low (n = 3), moderate (n = 8) and high (n = 2) risk of bias and weak economic analyses. Post-cancer surgery, CNS care was superior in reducing patient mortality. For patients with heart failure, CNS care delayed time to and reduced death or re-hospitalization, improved treatment adherence and patient satisfaction, and reduced costs and length of re-hospitalization stay. For elderly patients and caregivers, CNS care improved caregiver depression and reduced re-hospitalization, re-hospitalization length of stay and costs. For high-risk pregnant women and very low birthweight infants, CNS care improved infant immunization rates and maternal satisfaction with care and reduced maternal and infant length of hospital stay and costs., Conclusions: There is low-quality evidence that CNS transitional care improves patient health outcomes, delays re-hospitalization and reduces hospital length of stay, re-hospitalization rates and costs. Further research incorporating robust economic evaluation is needed., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) working in alternative or complementary roles in inpatient settings. Those in alternative roles substitute for another provider and deliver similar services. Those in complementary roles deliver additional services to meet patient health needs. We searched 10 electronic databases, reference lists, pertinent journals and websites from 1980 to July 2012 with no language, publication or geographical restrictions. Study identification and assessment were completed independently by two-member teams. Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The quality of the economic analysis was evaluated using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess outcome-specific quality of evidence. Three dated trials evaluated CNS and NP inpatient roles; they were conducted in North America and included 488 adults and 821 neonates. In one study, CNSs in complementary provider roles, when compared with usual care, were equally effective with equal resource use (very low-quality evidence). In two studies, NPs in alternative roles, when compared with physicians, were equally effective with equal-to-more resource use and equal costs (low- to moderate-quality evidence). The quality of the economic analyses was poor. Only three dated studies were identified. More research is needed to determine cost-effectiveness and inform policies and decisions related to the implementation of CNSs and NPs working exclusively in inpatient roles., (Copyright © 2015 Longwoods Publishing.)

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Increasing numbers of clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) are working in outpatient settings. The objective of this paper is to describe a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CNSs delivering outpatient care in alternative or complementary provider roles., Methods: We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and seven other electronic databases, 1980 to July 2012 and hand-searched bibliographies and key journals. RCTs that evaluated formally trained CNSs and health system outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess quality of evidence for individual outcomes., Results: Eleven RCTs, four evaluating alternative provider (n = 683 participants) and seven evaluating complementary provider roles (n = 1464 participants), were identified. Results of the alternative provider RCTs (low-to-moderate quality evidence) were fairly consistent across study populations with similar patient outcomes to usual care, some evidence of reduced resource use and costs, and two economic analyses (one fair and one high quality) favouring CNS care. Results of the complementary provider RCTs (low-to-moderate quality evidence) were also fairly consistent across study populations with similar or improved patient outcomes and mostly similar health system outcomes when compared with usual care; however, the economic analyses were weak., Conclusions: Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the effectiveness and two fair-to-high quality economic analyses support the cost-effectiveness of outpatient alternative provider CNSs. Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the effectiveness of outpatient complementary provider CNSs; however, robust economic evaluations are needed to address cost-effectiveness., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) are advanced practice nurses. They contribute to the quality and safety of patient care by providing an advanced level of clinical care to patients and families and by supporting healthcare team members to deliver evidence-based care. CNSs help to reduce healthcare costs when the roles are fully deployed and all the dimensions of the CNS role are implemented. The dimensions of the CNS role include clinical care, organizational leadership, research, education, professional development and consultation to provide patient care. There is a paucity of research on CNSs in Canada. We conducted the first Canada-wide survey of CNSs and asked each nursing regulatory body to identify the CNSs in their registration database. One-quarter (n=196/776) of the regulator-identified CNS respondents whom we contacted for the study were no longer or had never been a CNS. Currently, adequate mechanisms are lacking to identify and track CNSs in Canada, and little is known about the factors that influence CNSs' decisions to leave their role. The non-employed CNS respondents in our survey highlighted that the lack of role clarity, their inability to find employment as a CNS and the inability to implement all the dimensions of the CNS role were key factors in their decision not to work as a CNS. These findings have important implications, given that these factors are potentially modifiable and amenable to decisions made by nursing leaders in organizations and regulatory bodies. Mechanisms to identify and track CNSs in Canada are needed to develop an effective workforce plan and maximize the integration of CNSs in the workforce.

Background: Clinical nurse specialists are recognized internationally for providing an advanced level of practice. They positively impact the delivery of healthcare services by using specialty-specific expert knowledge and skills, and integrating competencies as clinicians, educators, researchers, consultants and leaders. Graduate-level education is recommended for the role but many countries do not have formal credentialing mechanisms for clinical nurse specialists. Previous studies have found that clinical nurse specialist roles are poorly understood by stakeholders. Few national studies have examined the utilization of clinical nurse specialists., Objective: To identify the practice patterns of clinical nurse specialists in Canada., Design: A descriptive cross-sectional survey., Participants: Self-identified clinical nurse specialists in Canada., Methods: A 50-item self-report questionnaire was developed, pilot-tested in English and French, and administered to self-identified clinical nurse specialists from April 2011 to August 2011. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and content analysis., Results: The actual number of clinical nurse specialists in Canada remains unknown. The response rate using the number of registry-identified clinical nurse specialists was 33% (804/2431). Of this number, 608 reported working as a clinical nurse specialist. The response rate for graduate-prepared clinical nurse specialists was 60% (471/782). The practice patterns of clinical nurse specialists varied across clinical specialties. Graduate-level education influenced their practice patterns. Few administrative structures and resources were in place to support clinical nurse specialist role development. The lack of title protection resulted in confusion around who identifies themselves as a clinical nurse specialist and consequently made it difficult to determine the number of clinical nurse specialists in Canada., Conclusions: This is the first national survey of clinical nurse specialists in Canada. A clearer understanding of these roles provides stakeholders with much needed information about clinical nurse specialist practice patterns. Such information can inform decisions about policies, education and organizational supports to effectively utilize this role in healthcare systems. This study emphasizes the need to develop standardized educational requirements, consistent role titles and credentialing mechanisms to facilitate the identification and comparison of clinical nurse specialist roles and role outcomes internationally., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To report quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of advanced practice nursing roles, clinical nurse specialists and nurse practitioners, in meeting the healthcare needs of older adults living in long-term care residential settings., Background: Although studies have examined the effectiveness of advanced practice nurses in this setting, a systematic review of this evidence has not been conducted., Design: Quantitative systematic review., Data Sources: Twelve electronic databases were searched (1966-2010); leaders in the field were contacted; and personal files, reference lists, pertinent journals, and websites were searched for prospective studies with a comparison group., Review Methods: Studies that met inclusion criteria were reviewed for quality, using a modified version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group risk of bias assessment criteria., Results: Four prospective studies conducted in the USA and reported in 15 papers were included. Long-term care settings with advanced practice nurses had lower rates of depression, urinary incontinence, pressure ulcers, restraint use, and aggressive behaviours; more residents who experienced improvements in meeting personal goals; and family members who expressed more satisfaction with medical services., Conclusion: Advanced practice nurses are associated with improvements in several measures of health status and behaviours of older adults in long-term care settings and in family satisfaction. Further exploration is needed to determine the effect of advanced practice nurses on health services use; resident satisfaction with care and quality of life; and the skills, quality of care, and job satisfaction of healthcare staff., (© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

The objective of this decision support synthesis was to identify and review published and grey literature and to conduct stakeholder interviews to (1) describe the distinguishing characteristics of clinical nurse specialist (CNS) and nurse practitioner (NP) role definitions and competencies relevant to Canadian contexts, (2) identify the key barriers and facilitators for the effective development and utilization of CNS and NP roles and (3) inform the development of evidence-based recommendations for the individual, organizational and system supports required to better integrate CNS and NP roles into the Canadian healthcare system and advance the delivery of nursing and patient care services in Canada. Four types of advanced practice nurses (APNs) were the focus: CNSs, primary healthcare nurse practitioners (PHCNPs), acute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) and a blended CNS/NP role. We worked with a multidisciplinary, multijurisdictional advisory board that helped identify documents and key informant interviewees, develop interview questions and formulate implications from our findings. We included 468 published and unpublished English- and French-language papers in a scoping review of the literature. We conducted interviews in English and French with 62 Canadian and international key informants (APNs, healthcare administrators, policy makers, nursing regulators, educators, physicians and other team members). We conducted four focus groups with a total of 19 APNs, educators, administrators and policy makers. A multidisciplinary roundtable convened by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation formulated evidence-informed policy and practice recommendations based on the synthesis findings. This paper forms the foundation for this special issue, which contains 10 papers summarizing different dimensions of our synthesis. Here, we summarize the synthesis methods and the recommendations formulated at the roundtable.

Although advanced practice nurses (APNs) have existed in Canada for over 40 years and there is abundant evidence of their safety and effectiveness, their full integration into our healthcare system has not been fully realized. For this paper, we drew on pertinent sections of a scoping review of the Canadian literature from 1990 onward and interviews or focus groups with 81 key informants conducted for a decision support synthesis on advanced practice nursing to identify the factors that enable role development and implementation across the three types of APNs: clinical nurse specialists, primary healthcare nurse practitioners and acute care nurse practitioners. For development of advanced practice nursing roles, many of the enabling factors occur at the federal/provincial/territorial (F/P/T) level. They include utilization of a pan-Canadian approach, provision of high-quality education, and development of appropriate legislative and regulatory mechanisms. Systematic planning to guide role development is needed at both the F/P/T and organizational levels. For implementation of advanced practice nursing roles, some of the enabling factors require action at the F/P/T level. They include recruitment and retention, role funding, intra-professional relations between clinical nurse specialists and nurse practitioners, public awareness, national leadership support and role evaluation. Factors requiring action at the level of the organization include role clarity, healthcare setting support, implementation of all role components and continuing education. Finally, inter-professional relations require action at both the F/P/T and organizational levels. A multidisciplinary roundtable formulated policy and practice recommendations based on the synthesis findings, and these are summarized in this paper.

In Canada, education programs for the clinical nurse specialist (CNS) and nurse practitioner (NP) roles began 40 years ago. NP programs are offered in almost all provinces. Education for the CNS role has occurred through graduate nursing programs generically defined as providing preparation for advanced nursing practice. For this paper, we drew on pertinent sections of a scoping review of the literature and key informant interviews conducted for a decision support synthesis on advanced practice nursing to describe the following: (1) history of advanced practice nursing education in Canada, (2) current status of advanced practice nursing education in Canada, (3) curriculum issues, (4) interprofessional education, (5) resources for education and (6) continuing education. Although national frameworks defining advanced nursing practice and NP competencies provide some direction for education programs, Canada does not have countrywide standards of education for either the NP or CNS role. Inconsistency in the educational requirements for primary healthcare NPs continues to cause significant problems and interferes with inter-jurisdictional licensing portability. For both CNSs and NPs, there can be a mismatch between a generalized education and specialized practice. The value of interprofessional education in facilitating effective teamwork is emphasized. Recommendations for future directions for advanced practice nursing education are offered.

The clinical nurse specialist (CNS) provides an important clinical leadership role for the nursing profession and broader healthcare system; yet the prominence and deployment of this role have fluctuated in Canada over the past 40 years. This paper draws on the results of a decision support synthesis examining advanced practice nursing roles in Canada. The synthesis included a scoping review of the Canadian and international literature and in-depth interviews with key informants including CNSs, nurse practitioners, other health providers, educators, healthcare administrators, nursing regulators and government policy makers. Key challenges to the full integration of CNSs in the Canadian healthcare system include the paucity of Canadian research to inform CNS role implementation, absence of a common vision for the CNS role in Canada, lack of a CNS credentialing mechanism and limited access to CNS-specific graduate education. Recommendations for maximizing the potential and long-term sustainability of the CNS role to achieve important patient, provider and health system outcomes in Canada are provided.

Primary healthcare nurse practitioners (PHCNPs), also known as family or all-ages nurse practitioners, are the fastest growing advanced practice nursing role in Canada. All 10 provinces and three territories now have legislation that authorizes their role. Their introduction is linked to countrywide health reform efforts to improve the accessibility and quality of primary healthcare.

Title confusion and lack of role clarity pose barriers to the integration of advanced practice nursing roles (i.e., clinical nurse specialist [CNS] and nurse practitioner [NP]). Lack of awareness and understanding about NP and CNS roles among the healthcare team and the public contributes to ambiguous role expectations, confusion about NP and CNS scopes of practice and turf protection. This paper draws on the results of a scoping review of the literature and qualitative key informant interviews conducted for a decision support synthesis commissioned by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation and the Office of Nursing Policy in Health Canada. The goal of this synthesis was to develop a better understanding of advanced practice nursing roles and the factors that influence their effective development and integration in the Canadian healthcare system. Specific recommendations from interview participants and the literature to enhance title and role clarity included the use of consistent titles for NP and CNS roles; the creation of a vision statement to articulate the role of CNSs and NPs across settings; the use of a systematic planning process to guide role development and implementation; the development of a communication strategy to educate healthcare professionals, the public and employers about the roles; attention to inter-professional team dynamics when introducing these new roles; and addressing inter-professionalism in all health professional education program curricula.

Supportive nursing leadership is important for the successful introduction and implementation of advanced practice nursing roles in Canadian healthcare settings. For this paper, we drew on pertinent sections of a scoping review of the literature and key informant interviews conducted for a decision support synthesis on advanced practice nursing to describe and explore organizational leadership in planning and implementing advanced practice nursing roles. Leadership strategies that optimize successful role integration include initiating systematic planning to develop the roles based on patient and community needs, engaging stakeholders, using established Canadian role implementation toolkits, ensuring utilization of all dimensions of the role, communicating clear messages to increase awareness about the roles in the organization, creating networks and facilitating mentorship for those in the role, and negotiating role expectations with physicians and other members of the healthcare team. Leaders face challenges in creating and securing sustainable funding for the roles and providing adequate infrastructure support.