Dataset Information

A UK training programme for nurse practitioner flexible sigmoidoscopy and a prospective evaluation of the practice of the first UK trained nurse flexible sigmoidoscopist.

ABSTRACT: Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a technical skill that has been successfully performed by suitably trained colorectal nurse practitioners in the USA. However, no recognised training course exists for nurse practitioners in the UK.To design and evaluate a training programme for nurse endoscopists.A multidisciplinary committee of nurses and clinicians developed a structured programme of study and practice. This involved a staged process of observations, withdrawals, and ultimately, full procedures. Once training had been completed the nurse practitioner was permitted to practice independently. Patients with colorectal symptoms referred for flexible sigmoidoscopy were examined for the final stages of training and independent practice. A prospective evaluation of the training and practice of the first trained nurse flexible sigmoidoscopist was performed. Barium enema, video, clinical follow up, and histology were used to validate the results of the flexible sigmoidoscopies.The training programme required that 35 observations, 35 withdrawals, and 35 supervised full procedures were performed prior to the development of independent practice. Subsequent to the completion of this programme 215 patients have been examined independently by the nurse practitioner. Ninety three per cent of the examinations were judged successful and pathology was identified in 51%. The nurse endoscopist successfully identified all "significant" pathology whereas barium enema failed to identify pathology in 12.5%. There were no complications.With suitable training nurse endoscopists are able to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy safely and effectively.

SUBMITTER: Duthie GS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1727331 | biostudies-other | 1998 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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).

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:IntroductionPrimary 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 analysisA 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 disseminationNo 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 numberCRD42020198182.

Dataset Information

A UK training programme for nurse practitioner flexible sigmoidoscopy and a prospective evaluation of the practice of the first UK trained nurse flexible sigmoidoscopist.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets