Dataset Information

Identifying indicators sensitive to primary healthcare nurse practitioner practice: a review of systematic reviews protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Primary healthcare nurse practitioners (PHCNPs) practice in a wide range of clinical settings and with diverse patient populations. Several systematic reviews have examined outcomes of PHCNP roles. However, there is a lack of consistency in the definitions used for the PHCNP role across the reviews. The identification of indicators sensitive to PHCNP practice from the perspective of patients, providers and the healthcare system will allow researchers, clinicians and decision-makers to understand how these providers contribute to outcomes of care.

Methods and analysis

A review of systematic reviews is proposed to describe the current state of knowledge about indicators sensitive to PHCNP practice using recognised role definitions. Outcomes of interest include any outcome indicator measuring the effectiveness of PHCNPs. We will limit our search to 2010 onwards to capture the most up-to-date trends. The following electronic databases will be searched: Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews and Controlled Trials Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, EMBASE, Global Health, Health Economics Evaluation Database, Health Evidence, HealthStar, Health Systems Evidence, Joanna Briggs Institute, Medline, PDQ-Evidence, PubMed and Web of Science. The search strategies will be reviewed by an academic librarian. Reference lists of all relevant publications will be reviewed. Grey literature will be searched from 2010 onwards, and will include: CADTH Information Services, CADTH's Grey Matters tool, OpenGrey, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses and WHO. The PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews will be searched to identify registered review protocols. The review protocol was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols recommendations. A narrative synthesis will be used to summarise study findings.

Ethics and dissemination

No ethical approval is required for the study. The data used in the study will be abstracted from published systematic reviews. Dissemination strategies will include peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and presentations to key stakeholders.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020198182.

SUBMITTER: Kilpatrick K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7789441 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo identify indicators sensitive to the practice of primary healthcare nurse practitioners (PHCNPs).Materials and methodsA review of systematic reviews was undertaken to identify indicators sensitive to PHCNP practice. Published and grey literature was searched from January 1, 2010 to December 2, 2022. Titles/abstracts (n = 4251) and full texts (n = 365) were screened independently by two reviewers, with a third acting as a tie-breaker. Reference lists of relevant publications were reviewed. Risk of bias was examined independently by two reviewers using AMSTAR-2. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer to describe study characteristics, indicators, and results. Indicators were recoded into categories. Findings were summarized using narrative synthesis.ResultsForty-four systematic reviews were retained including 271 indicators that were recoded into 26 indicator categories at the patient, provider and health system levels. Nineteen reviews were assessed to be at low risk of bias. Patient indicator categories included activities of daily living, adaptation to health conditions, clinical conditions, diagnosis, education-patient, mortality, patient adherence, quality of life, satisfaction, and signs and symptoms. Provider indicator categories included adherence to best practice-providers, education-providers, illness prevention, interprofessional team functioning, and prescribing. Health system indicator categories included access to care, consultations, costs, emergency room visits, healthcare service delivery, hospitalizations, length of stay, patient safety, quality of care, scope of practice, and wait times.DiscussionEqual to improved care for almost all indicators was found consistently for the PHCNP group. Very few indicators favoured the control group. No indicator was identified for high/low fidelity simulation, cultural safety and cultural sensitivity with people in vulnerable situations or Indigenous Peoples.ConclusionThis review of systematic reviews identified patient, provider and health system indicators sensitive to PHCNP practice. The findings help clarify how PHCNPs contribute to care outcomes.Prospero registration numberCRD42020198182.

Project description:There is a plethora of interventions and policies aimed at changing practice habits of primary healthcare professionals, but it is unclear which are the most appropriate, sustainable, and effective. We aimed to evaluate the evidence on behavior change interventions and policies directed at healthcare professionals working in primary healthcare centers.Study design: overview of reviews.MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EbscoHost), and grey literature (January 2005 to July 2015).two reviewers independently, and in duplicate, identified systematic reviews, overviews of reviews, scoping reviews, rapid reviews, and relevant health technology reports published in full-text in the English language.two reviewers extracted data pertaining to the types of reviews, study designs, number of studies, demographics of the professionals enrolled, interventions, outcomes, and authors' conclusions for the included studies. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies using the AMSTAR scale. For the comparative evaluation, we classified interventions according to the behavior change wheel (Michie et al.).Of 2771 citations retrieved, we included 138 reviews representing 3502 individual studies. The majority of systematic reviews (91%) investigated behavior and practice changes among family physicians. Interactive and multifaceted continuous medical education programs, training with audit and feedback, and clinical decision support systems were found to be beneficial in improving knowledge, optimizing screening rate and prescriptions, enhancing patient outcomes, and reducing adverse events. Collaborative team-based policies involving primarily family physicians, nurses, and pharmacists were found to be most effective. Available evidence on environmental restructuring and modeling was found to be effective in improving collaboration and adherence to treatment guidelines. Limited evidence on nurse-led care approaches were found to be as effective as general practitioners in patient satisfaction in settings like asthma, cardiovascular, and diabetes clinics, although this needs further evaluation. Evidence does not support the use of financial incentives to family physicians, especially for long-term behavior change.Behavior change interventions including education, training, and enablement in the context of collaborative team-based approaches are effective to change practice of primary healthcare professionals. Environmental restructuring approaches including nurse-led care and modeling need further evaluation. Financial incentives to family physicians do not influence long-term practice change.

Project description:ObjectivesReminders in primary care administrative systems aim to help clinicians provide evidence-based care, prescribe safely and save money. However, increased use of reminders can lead to alert fatigue. Our study aimed to assess general practitioners' (GPs) and nurse practitioners' (NPs) views on electronic reminders in primary care.DesignA qualitative analysis using semistructured interviews.Setting and participantsFifteen GPs and NP based in general practices located in North-West London and Yorkshire, England.MethodsWe collected data on participants' views on: (1) perceptions of the value of information provided; (2) reminder-related behaviours and (3) how to improve reminders. We carried out a thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants were familiar with reminders in their clinical systems and felt many were important to support their clinical work. However, participants reported, on average, 70% of reminders were ignored. Four major themes emerged: (1) reaction to a reminder, which was mixed and varied by situation. (2) Factors influencing the decision to act on reminders, often related to experience, consultation styles and interests of participants. Time constraints, alert design, inappropriate presentation and litigation were also factors. (3) Negative consequences of using reminders were increased workload or costs and compromising GP and NPs behaviour. (4) Factors relating to improving users' engagement with reminders were prevention of unnecessary reminders through data linkage across healthcare administrative systems or the development of more intelligent algorithms. Participants felt training was vital to effectively manage reminders.ConclusionsGPs and NPs believe reminders are useful in supporting the provision of good quality patient care. Improving GPs and NPs' engagement with reminders centres on further developing their relevance to their clinical practice, which is personalised, considers cognitive workflow and suppresses inappropriate presentation.

Project description:IntroductionGlobally, nurse practitioner (NP) has become an important nursing role in the pursuit of a more efficient healthcare, possessing the necessary expert skills to work as autonomous practitioners. Nevertheless, there are barriers in the implementation of this role. One barrier concerns the different levels of education required for NPs. Previous studies demonstrate the importance of acting for a uniform international education. The aim of the scoping review was to compile research about education to become an NP, focusing on the content of curricula and learning objectives.Methods and analysisThe six-stage methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley will guide the scoping review through the following stages: identifying the research questions; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; collating, summarising and reporting the results; and consultation. The research questions are as follows: What is the content of curricula in NP programmes? What are the learning objectives in NP programmes? The literature searches will be conducted between March and June 2019 in the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL and ERIC, followed by hand searching reference lists of key studies. Grey literature will be searched in Google Scholar, Libsearch, existing networks and relevant organisations. Two researchers will screen titles and abstracts. Included full-text articles will be screened by three researchers and assessed for their methodological quality by the use of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. The PreferredReporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram will be used to demonstrate included and excluded articles. The findings will be presented through a numerical summary of the included articles, followed by a thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval is not required for a scoping review. The scoping review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Additionally, the findings will be disseminated to stakeholders representing political, educational, professional and union organisations through a Delphi study as part of the consultation stage of the Arksey and O'Malleys framework.

Project description:AimTo achieve profession-wide consensus on clinical practice standards for six broad Australian nurse practitioner specialty areas (termed metaspecialties).DesignSequential mixed methods with initial interpretive study (Interpretive Phase) followed by modified three-round Delphi study (Survey Phase).MethodsParticipants from all Australian jurisdictions were recruited. Main eligibility criterion was current endorsement as a nurse practitioner for 12 or more months. Interpretive Phase comprised in-depth interviews of purposeful sample of nurse practitioners to identify clinical care activities and practice processes. Six sets of draft clinical practice standards relevant to six previously identified metaspecialties were developed. Outcome informed Round 1 of Survey Phase (six nested web-based Delphi surveys), with draft standards reviewed profession-wide. Responses comprised scoring using Likert scales to calculate content validity indexes for individual standards with qualitative responses supporting decision-making. For Rounds 2 and 3, participants rated relevancy of original or revised standards after consideration of individual and group feedback. The study was conducted 2014-2017.ResultsInterpretive Phase: Analysis of interview data with 16 nurse practitioners provided 75 draft standards. Survey Phase: 221 nurse practitioners completed Round 1 (20% of then eligible Australian nurse practitioners). Weighted respondent retention was 92%. Seventy-three standards were validated, with final content validity indices of 92-100%. Scale-level indices were 98%, strongly validating metaspecialty taxonomy.ConclusionA research-derived, professionally endorsed suite of nurse practitioner clinical practice standards was developed. This provides a broad clinical learning structure with metaspecialties guiding nurse practitioner student clinical education.ImpactThe clinical practice standards and metaspecialty taxonomy strengthen nurse practitioner clinical education and professional development nationally and internationally. These novel study methods and findings are applicable to advanced specialty roles in other health professions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo measure the effect of nurse practitioner and pharmacist consultations on the appropriate use of medications by patients.DesignWe studied patients in the intervention arm of a randomized controlled trial. The main trial intervention was provision of multidisciplinary team care and the main outcome was quality and processes of care for chronic disease management.SettingPatients were recruited from a single publicly funded family health network practice of 8 family physicians and associated staff serving 10 000 patients in a rural area near Ottawa, Ont.ParticipantsA total of 120 patients 50 years of age or older who were on the practice roster and who were considered by their family physicians to be at risk of experiencing adverse health outcomes.InterventionA pharmacist and 1 of 3 nurse practitioners visited each patient at his or her home, conducted a comprehensive medication review, and developed a tailored plan to optimize medication use. The plan was developed in consultation with the patient and the patient's doctor. We assessed medication appropriateness at the study baseline and again 12 to 18 months later.Main outcome measuresWe used the medication appropriateness index to assess medication use. We examined associations between personal characteristics and inappropriate use at baseline and with improvements in medication use at the follow-up assessment. We recorded all drug problems encountered during the trial.ResultsAt baseline, 27.2% of medications were inappropriate in some way and 77.7% of patients were receiving at least 1 medication that was inappropriate in some way. At the follow-up assessments these percentages had dropped to 8.9% and 38.6%, respectively (P < .001). Patient characteristics that were associated with receiving inappropriate medication at baseline were being older than 80 years of age (odds ratio [OR] = 5.00, 95% CI 1.19 to 20.50), receiving more than 4 medications (OR = 6.64, 95% CI 2.54 to 17.4), and not having a university-level education (OR = 4.55, 95% CI 1.69 to 12.50).ConclusionWe observed large improvements in the appropriate use of medications during this trial. This might provide a mechanism to explain some of the reductions in mortality and morbidity observed in other trials of counseling and advice provided by pharmacists and nurses.Trial registration numberNCT00238836 (ClinicalTrials.gov).