Search

Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles. Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization). Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012. Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n=11), NP-transition (n=5), NP-inpatient (n=2), CNS-outpatient (n=11), CNS-transition (n=13), and CNS-inpatient (n=1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity. Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.

Rationale: Clinical practice is the primary focus of advanced practice nursing (APN) roles. However, with unprecedented needs for health care reform and quality improvement (QI), health care administrators are seeking new ways to utilize all dimensions of APN expertise, especially related to research and evidence-based practice. International studies reveal research as the most underdeveloped and underutilized aspect of these roles., Aims: To improve patient care by strengthening the capacity of advanced practice nurses to integrate research and evidence-based practice activities into their day-to-day practice., Methods: An academic-practice partnership was created among hospital-based advanced practice nurses, nurse administrators, and APN researchers to create an innovative approach to educate and mentor advanced practice nurses in conducting point-of-care research, QI, or evidence-based practice projects to improve patient, provider, and/or system outcomes. A practice-based research course was delivered to 2 cohorts of advanced practice nurses using a range of teaching strategies including 1-to-1 academic mentorship. All participants completed self-report surveys before and after course delivery., Results: Through participation in this initiative, advanced practice nurses enhanced their knowledge, skills, and confidence in the design, implementation, and/or evaluation of research, QI, and evidence-based practice activities., Conclusion: Evaluation of this initiative provides evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of academic-practice partnerships to educate and mentor point-of-care providers on how to lead, implement, and integrate research, QI and evidence-based activities into their practices., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: To identify recommendations for determining patient panel/caseload size for nurse practitioners in community-based primary health care settings., Design: Scoping review of the international published and grey literature., Data Sources: The search included electronic databases, international professional and governmental websites, contact with experts, and hand searches of reference lists. Eligible papers had to (a) address caseload or patient panels for nurse practitioners in community-based primary health care settings serving an all-ages population; and (b) be published in English or French between January 2000 and July 2014. Level one testing included title and abstract screening by two team members. Relevant papers were retained for full text review in level two testing, and reviewed by two team members. A third reviewer acted as a tiebreaker. Data were extracted using a structured extraction form by one team member and verified by a second member. Descriptive statistics were estimated. Content analysis was used for qualitative data., Results: We identified 111 peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents. Most of the papers were published in Canada and the United States after 2010. Current methods to determine panel/caseload size use large administrative databases, provider work hours and the average number of patient visits. Most of the papers addressing the topic of patient panel/caseload size in community-based primary health care were descriptive. The average number of patients seen by nurse practitioners per day varied considerably within and between countries; an average of 9-15 patients per day was common. Patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender) and health conditions (e.g., multiple chronic conditions) appear to influence patient panel/caseload size. Very few studies used validated tools to classify patient acuity levels or disease burden scores., Discussion: The measurement of productivity and the determination of panel/caseload size is complex. Current metrics may not capture activities relevant to community-based primary health care nurse practitioners. Tools to measure all the components of these role are needed when determining panel/caseload size. Outcomes research is absent in the determination of panel/caseload size., Conclusion: There are few systems in place to track and measure community-based primary health care nurse practitioner activities. The development of such mechanisms is an important next step to assess community-based primary health care nurse practitioner productivity and determine patient panel/caseload size. Decisions about panel/caseload size must take into account the effects of nurse practitioner activities on outcomes of care., (Copyright © 2016 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.)

Purpose: To describe activities of interprofessional (IP) care, a key aspect of high-quality care, performed by nurse practitioners (NPs) employed in acute and long-term care institutions., Data Sources: We developed and tested a new theory-driven process tool to quantify NP everyday activities of IP care. We then invited NPs in acute and long-term care to complete the IP self-assessment tool (IPSAT)., Conclusions: The IPSAT is a validated tool shown to be reliable for use with NPs. Testing with other healthcare professionals is suggested. More than 50% of NPs engage in all activities of IP care. Many engage in shared decision making, professional relationship, communication, and partnership or collaboration activities on most work days. Less-common activities were interdependence and collective problem solving including efforts to create role clarity., Implications for Practice: It is important to evaluate the everyday use of activities that enhance high-quality care. Awareness and enhanced knowledge of IP care activities such as promoting interdependence, collective problem solving, and ensuring role clarity will improve care quality. The tool results are valuable for practicing NPs and their educators to reflect on practice and advance knowledge to influence purposeful engagement in interprofessional care., (©2015 American Association of Nurse Practitioners.)

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.)

Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners delivering transitional care., Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials., Data Sources: Ten electronic databases, bibliographies, hand-searches, study authors, and websites., Review Methods: We included randomised controlled trials that compared formally trained nurse practitioners to usual care and measured health system outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Quality of Health Economic Studies tools. We pooled data for similar outcomes and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool to rate the quality of evidence for each outcome., Results: Five trials met the inclusion criteria. One evaluated one alternative provider nurse practitioner (154 patients) and four evaluated six complementary provider nurse practitioners (1017 patients). Two were at low and three at high risk of bias and all had weak economic analyses. The alternative provider nurse practitioner had similar patient outcomes and resource use to the physician (low quality). Complementary provider nurse practitioners scored similarly to the control group in patient outcomes except for anxiety in rehabilitation patients (MD: -15.7, 95%CI: -20.73 to -10.67, p<0.001) (very low quality) and patient satisfaction after an abdominal hysterectomy (MD: 14, 95%CI: 3.5-24.5, p<0.01) (low quality), both favouring nurse practitioner care. Meta-analyses of index re-hospitalisation up to 42 days (n=766, pooled relative risk (RR): 0.69, 95%CI: 0.34-1.43, I(2)=0%) and any re-hospitalisation up to 180 days (n=800, pooled RR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.69-1.09, I(2)=32%) were inconclusive (low quality). Complementary provider nurse practitioners significantly reduced index re-hospitalisation over 90 days (RR: 0.55, 95%CI: 0.32-0.94, p=0.03) and 180 days (RR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.40-0.95, p=0.03) in complex care patients (both low quality) and they significantly reduced the number and duration of rehabilitation patient-to-staff consultation calls (p<0.05)., Conclusions: Given the low quality evidence, weak economic analyses, small sample sizes, and small number of nurse practitioners evaluated in each study, evidence of the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioner-transitional care is inconclusive and further research is needed., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at high risk for reinfarction and death. Therapies that have been shown to reduce these risks (secondary prevention) continue to be underutilized. Nurse practitioners are well positioned to provide secondary prevention during and following hospitalization., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of NP care on the rate of provider implementation and patient achievement of evidence-based secondary prevention target goals., Design: A prospective cohort design was used, which compared achievement of target goals between patients who received secondary prevention care from an NP to those who received usual care., Participants: The sample consisted of 65 patients with AMI, admitted to a large community hospital. Patients meeting eligibility criteria were recruited consecutively., Methods: The intervention was delivered by the NP before discharge from hospital and one week, two weeks, six weeks and 3 months after discharge. Data on patients' achievement of goals were obtained before discharge from hospital and 3 months after discharge from both groups., Results: This study's results provide preliminary evidence that an NP delivered secondary prevention intervention can significantly improve achievement of the following target goals when compared to usual care: smoking cessation (OR 5), blood pressure (OR 15), attendance at cardiac rehabilitation (OR 7), physical activity five days a week (OR 17), physical activity ≥ five days a week (OR 34), achieving a glycated haemoglobin < 7% in those with diabetes (OR 10), triglyceride levels (p = .02), statin use at follow-up (p = .05), and number of weeks to cardiac rehabilitation (p = .05)., Conclusion: NP-led interventions such as this warrant duplication to evaluate reproducibility of the intervention and to determine if short-term improvements in secondary prevention goals translate into morbidity and mortality benefits., (Copyright © 2014 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: Patient-centered care (PCC) is a vaguely defined element of high-quality care, which precludes its consistent and precise operationalization. A conceptualization of PCC was derived from the literature and guided the development of an instrument to assess implementation of PCC by healthcare providers. The items of the instrument capture specific activities that reflect three components of PCC: holistic, collaborative, and responsive care. This paper reports on the measure's content and construct validity and reliability., Methods: Content validity was evaluated in a sample of 11 nurse practitioners who rated the relevance of each items' content in reflecting the respective component of PCC. The content validity index (CVI) was estimated. Construct validity and internal consistency reliability were examined in a survey of 149 nurse practitioners employed in acute care institutions, using factor analysis and the KR-20 coefficient, respectively., Results: The CVIs were 100% for the three subscales assessing the holistic, collaborative, and responsive care components of PCC. The items in each subscale loaded on one factor. The KR-20 coefficients were .66, .70, and .42, respectively. Overall, the majority (>70%) of respondents indicated performance of the activities comprising the three components of PCC., Linking Evidence to Action: The PCC measure demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties. The low variance in responses, which is anticipated for instruments assessing fidelity of intervention implementation, accounts for the low reliability coefficients. Additional testing of the measure's psychometric properties in different groups of healthcare providers is warranted. The measure can be used to monitor healthcare providers' implementation of PCC in their usual practice., (© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International.)

Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles. Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization). Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012. Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n = 11), NP-transition (n = 5), NP-inpatient (n = 2), CNS-outpatient (n = 11), CNS-transition (n = 13), and CNS-inpatient (n = 1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity. Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.

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.

The acute care nurse practitioner (ACNP) role was developed in Canada in the late 1980s to offset rapidly increasing physician workloads in acute care settings and to address the lack of continuity of care for seriously ill patients and increased complexity of care delivery. These challenges provided an opportunity to develop an advanced practice nursing role to care for critically ill patients with the intent of improving continuity of care and patient outcomes. For this paper, we drew on the ACNP-related findings of a scoping review of the literature and key informant interviews conducted for a decision support synthesis on advanced practice nursing. The synthesis revealed that ACNPs are working in a range of clinical settings. While ACNPs are trained at the master's level, there is a gap in specialty education for ACNPs. Important barriers to the full integration of ACNP roles into the Canadian healthcare system include lack of full utilization of role components, limitations to scope of practice, inconsistent team acceptance and funding issues. Facilitators to ACNP role implementation include clear communication about the role, with messages tailored to the specific information needs of various stakeholder groups; supportive leadership of healthcare managers; and stable and predictable funding. The status of ACNP roles continues to evolve across Canada. Ongoing leadership and continuing research are required to enhance the integration of these roles into our healthcare system.

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.

Advanced practice nursing has evolved over the years to become recognized today as an important and growing trend among healthcare systems worldwide. To understand the development and current status of advanced practice nursing within a Canadian context, it is important to explore its historical roots and influences. The purpose of this paper is to provide a historical overview of the major influences on the development of advanced practice nursing roles that exist in Canada today, those roles being the nurse practitioner and the clinical nurse specialist. Using a scoping review and qualitative interviews, data were summarized according to three distinct time periods related to the development of advanced practice nursing. They are the early beginnings; the first formal wave, between the mid 1960s and mid 1980s; and the second wave, beginning in the late 1980s and continuing to the present. This paper highlights how advanced practice nursing roles have evolved over the years to meet emerging needs within the Canadian healthcare system. A number of influential factors have both facilitated and hindered the development of the roles, despite strong evidence to support their effectiveness. Given the progress over the past few decades, the future of advanced practice nursing within the Canadian healthcare system is promising.

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.

In the past decade, all Canadian provinces and territories have launched various team-based primary healthcare initiatives designed to improve access and continuity of care. Nurse practitioners (NPs) are increasingly becoming integral members of primary healthcare teams across the country. This paper draws on the results of a scoping review of the literature and qualitative key informant interviews conducted for a decision support synthesis about advanced practice nursing in Canada. We describe and analyze two novel approaches to NP integration designed to address the gap in patient access to primary healthcare: (1) the integration of NPs in traditional fee-for-service practices in British Columbia, and (2) the creation of NP-led clinics in Ontario. Although fee-for-service remuneration has been a barrier to collaborative practice, the integration of government-salaried NPs into fee-for-service practices in British Columbia has enabled the creation of inter-professional teams, and based on early evaluation findings, has increased patient access to care and patient and provider satisfaction. NP-led clinics are designed to provide inter-professional care in communities with high numbers of patients who do not have a regular primary healthcare provider. Given the shortage of physicians in communities where these clinics are being introduced, the ratio of physicians to NPs is lower than in other primary healthcare delivery models, and physicians function in more of a consulting role. Initial evaluation of the first of 26 NP-led clinics indicates increased access to care and high levels of patient and provider satisfaction. Implementing a creative mosaic of collaborative primary healthcare models that are responsive to patient needs challenges traditional assumptions about professional roles and responsibilities. To address this challenge, we endorse a recommendation that governments establish a mechanism to bring together both physician and non-physician primary healthcare providers to advise on primary healthcare policy development and implementation.

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.