Laserina O Connor

RRH: Rural and Remote Health. Published article number: 8128 - Role dimensions of general practice nurses in Ireland

Background: Despite representing the largest occupational group within the healthcare workforce, evidence suggests that due to the complexity of nursing practice, nurses’ contribution remains ‘invisible’. Quality Care Metrics aligned to standards can offer valuable numerical information that quantify input, output and dimensions of nursing care processes in complex clinical and interprofessional milieus. Aims and objectives: Progress an evidence-based metric system to measure the quality and clinical safety of nursing care within acute care in Ireland. The objectives were to: classify quality care process nursing metrics and corresponding indicators pertinent to acute care; reach agreement on a selected set of robust metrics and corresponding indicators; and implement the findings of the study. Design: A modified four-round Delphi study. Methods: The modified Delphi study integrated a four-round survey of 422 nurses, face-to-face meetings with a patient representative and key stakeholders within acute services with a final consensus meeting inclusive of a panel of 26 expert nurse clinicians. Results: There was consensus on 11 quality care process nursing metrics and 53 corresponding indicators for the acute care setting. Despite the rating of ‘critical’ in the Delphi rounds, a concern was reported by participants on the subjective nature of three of the developed metrics: ‘patient experience’, ‘patient engagement’ and ‘professional and ethical approach to care’ based on the absence of objective measurement tools that include patient input. Conversely, this led to the conundrum for the panel of experts at the final consensus meeting who were divided in their views on objectively observing, recording and subsequent auditing of those three developed metrics in real-time clinical practice. Conclusion: This paper describes the operationalisation of a modified Delphi technique that progressed a set of 11 quality care process metrics and 53 corresponding indicators. The challenge now is the implementation of these quality care process metrics so that nurses’ contribution to patient-centred care is tangible in acute care.

Aim: To outline the development, implementation and evaluation of an alternative combined type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) care delivery strategy provided in the context of advanced practice nursing informed by co‐created knowledge, between patients and healthcare teams to address identified gaps in care provision.Design: This study was informed by the theoretical underpinnings of critical theory and operationalized using a participatory action research (PAR) design. This approach enabled alignment between the theoretical underpinnings and research methodology to respond to practice‐level problems and address issues related to healthcare delivery.Methods: The study was undertaken in a series of three cycles of enquiry over a 20 month period (July 2018–February 2020) in five geographically diverse specialist diabetes and nephrology centres. Data collection methods included PAR group minute consensus, retrospective chart review, discovery and focus group interviews. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data.Results: Compared with international standard care outcomes, a higher proportion of patients attending combined care achieved best practice recommendations for blood pressure, Hba1c and lipid management (64.3% vs. <40%). Patients attending combined care experienced improved detection and management of CKD‐related anaemia. Additionally, the combined care service experienced significantly lower levels of patient's failure to attend scheduled reviews compared with participating standard care services (0% vs. 7%–23.3%).Conclusions: Best practice clinical care outcomes and patient attendance improved when a combined type 2 diabetes and CKD care delivery strategy provided in the context of advanced practice nursing was adopted.Impact: This alternative care strategy represented a departure from standard care delivery approaches, in which care for type 2 diabetes and CKD is provided separately and led by physicians. Outcomes demonstrate improved clinical and attendance outcomes which may inform the development of future services led by advanced nurse practitioners.

Background: The prevalence of constipation in patients with cancer is estimated at 50-90%. It is often associated with pain, anorexia, nausea and vomiting and impacts negatively on quality of life. Despite its common occurrence, it is often poorly recognised and treated by healthcare professionals. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted in Ireland to describe constipation prevalence and severity in patients attending cancer centres and to evaluate management efficacy. In-patients or patients attending day oncology wards in any of the country’s eight designated cancer centres were eligible to participate. Participants were shown the Bristol Stool Chart and answered questions regarding stool appearance and sensation of incomplete defecation; they completed the Constipation Assessment Scale. Data on pain character and intensity, opioid use, and prescribed and over-the-counter laxative use were collected. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Significance of variations for continuous data were determined using t-tests. Conditional ordered logistic regression was undertaken to determine factors associated with constipation. Results: The dataset comprised 491 patients. 24.8% had been reviewed by specialist palliative care; 14.5% by the anaesthetic pain team. In total, 42.2% of respondents were taking step 2 or step 3 opioids. Constipation prevalence was 67.6%; 19.4% of patients had Constipation Assessment Scale scores indicating severe constipation. A total of 46% of the respondents were not taking any laxatives. Of those who were taking laxatives, 54.8% reported constipation symptoms. While opioid use was strongly associated with participants reporting higher scores, this association was not seen in those patients receiving specialist palliative care. Conclusions: Constipation remains a clinical problem in Irish cancer centres. Despite increased opioid use, patients receiving specialist palliative care were more likely to take laxatives and reported less constipation. Specialist palliative care practice should be studied in order to identify what are the transferable ‘ingredients’ of effective constipation management.

Background: Irish general practice nursing roles have developed and grown exponentially in response to changing policy, clinical and workforce demands, this is reflective of international primary healthcare nursing trends. However, as nursing care in general practice advances, comprehensive evaluation of the general practice nurse (GPN) role has not been undertaken. Therefore, processes which enable robust data collection to assess the role and facilitate development of services are required. Nursing quality care metrics are an established mechanism which evaluate quality of care. Nursing quality care process metrics (QCP-Ms) specifically refer to measurement of care delivered directly to patients by nurses, benchmarking these interventions adherence to best practice guidance. The use of nursing metrics has been adopted within seven distinct healthcare settings in Ireland but not general practice. This scoping review is the first stage of a project which aims to inform development and implementation of QCP-Ms by Irish GPNs. Aim: To explore and map the literature regarding the development and implementation of QCP-Ms within general practice settings. Methods: The following five-stage methodological framework for scoping reviews proposed by Arksey and O’Malley will be used: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) study selection, (4) charting/mapping the data and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results. The review will be conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Conclusions: The focus of this scoping review relates to QCP-Ms which specifically measure the work of general practice nurses. It is envisioned that synthesis of international literature will give a broad perspective about nursing QCP-Ms, their use in general practice or primary healthcare settings, enriching understanding regarding their development. It is anticipated that findings will provide key information to policy makers and health professionals interested in planning, strengthening, and delivering primary healthcare.

Background: Irish general practice nursing roles have developed and grown exponentially in response to changing policy, clinical and workforce demands over the past three decades. However, as nursing care in general practice advances at pace, comprehensive evaluation of the general practice nurse (GPN) role has not been undertaken. Therefore, processes which enable robust data collection to carefully assess the role and facilitate development of services are required. Nursing quality care metrics (QCM) are an established mechanism which measure nursing care process, evaluate quality, and impact of care, and inform service development. The use of nursing QCM has been adopted within seven distinct healthcare settings in Ireland but not general practice. This scoping review is the first stage of a project which aims to inform development of QCM within Irish GPN settings. Aim: To explore and map the literature regarding the use, application, and impact of nursing quality care metrics within a general practice, primary care setting. Methods: The following five-stage methodological framework for scoping reviews proposed by Arksey and O’Malley will be used: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) study selection, (4) charting/mapping the data and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results. The review will be conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Conclusions: The focus of this scoping review relates to QCM which specifically measure the work of general practice nurses. It is envisioned that synthesis of international literature will give a broad perspective about QCM, their use in general practice or primary care settings, and enrich understanding of their development. It is anticipated that findings will provide key information to policy makers and health professionals interested in planning, strengthening, and delivering primary care in Ireland.

Background : The role and contribution of advanced nurse practitioners (ANP) has been well researched and found to be of great value for improving quality patient care and enhancing patient outcomes through education and health promotion. However, the role and the contribution of the ANP to gastroenterology nursing have not been evaluated either nationally or internationally. A review to determine the role and contribution of the ANP in gastroenterology nursing will inform on the contribution of the role and whether the role makes a difference to patient outcomes and cost effectiveness of patient care. Objective : This review aims to investigate the nursing role and contribution of the advanced nurse practitioner in gastroenterology. Furthermore, improved understanding of the underlying causal mechanisms explaining how the ANP role in gastroenterology nursing works, will provide a deeper understanding of how, why, for whom and in what contexts the role and contribution of the ANP to gastroenterology nursing are most successful. Methods: A realist review will consolidate evidence on how, when why and where the ANP role in gastroenterology works or fails through identifying programme theories underlying to the role’s introduction. The following steps will be operationalised; locating existing theories, searching the literature, documenting literature selection, engaging in data extraction and synthesis and refining programme theory. As an iterative approach, review cycles will uncover explanatory and contingent theories through context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCc). Due to the variation in context and mechanisms, different outcomes will be likely across different clinical settings although similar patterns may be identified. Conclusions: Due to the theory-oriented approach of realist reviews, the pragmatic consequences of the review, will lend itself to deeper understanding of how the role and contribution of the ANP in gastroenterology nursing works in practice.

Quality measurement initiatives promote quality improvement in healthcare but can be challenging to implement effectively. This paper presents a Rapid Realist Review (RRR) of published literature on Quality Care-Process Metrics (QCP-M) implementation in nursing and midwifery practice. An RRR informed by RAMESES II standards was conducted as an efficient means to synthesize evidence using an expert panel. The review involved research question development, quality appraisal, data extraction, and evidence synthesis. Six program theories summarised below identify the key characteristics that promote positive outcomes in QCP-M implementation. Program Theory 1: Focuses on the evidence base and accessibility of the QCP-M and their ease of use by nurses and midwives working in busy and complex care environments. Program Theory 2: Examines the influence of external factors on QCP-M implementation. Program Theory 3: Relates to existing cultures and systems within clinical sites. Program Theory 4: Relates to nurses’ and midwives’ knowledge and beliefs. Program Theory 5: Builds on the staff theme of Programme Theory four, extending the culture of organizational learning, and highlights the meaningful engagement of nurses and midwives in the implementation process as a key characteristic of success. Program Theory 6: Relates to patient needs. The results provide nursing and midwifery policymakers and professionals with evidence-based program theory that can be translated into action-orientated strategies to help guide successful QCP-M implementation.

Background: The prevalence of constipation in patients with cancer is estimated at 50-90%. It is often associated with pain, anorexia, nausea and vomiting and impacts negatively on quality of life. Despite its common occurrence, it is often poorly recognised and treated by healthcare professionals. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted in Ireland to describe constipation prevalence and severity in patients attending cancer centres and to evaluate management efficacy. In-patients or patients attending day oncology wards in any of the country’s eight designated cancer centres were eligible to participate. Participants were shown the Bristol Stool Chart and answered questions regarding stool appearance and sensation of incomplete defecation; they completed the Constipation Assessment Scale. Data on pain character and intensity, opioid use, and prescribed and over-the-counter laxative use were collected. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Significance of variations for continuous data were determined using t-tests. Conditional ordered logistic regression was undertaken to determine factors associated with constipation. Results: The dataset comprised 491 patients. 24.8% had been reviewed by specialist palliative care; 14.5% by the anaesthetic pain team. In total, 42.2% of respondents were taking step 2 or step 3 opioids. Constipation prevalence was 67.6%; 19.4% of patients had Constipation Assessment Scale scores indicating severe constipation. A total of 46% of the respondents were not taking any laxatives. Of those who were taking laxatives, 54.8% reported constipation symptoms. While opioid use was strongly associated with participants reporting higher scores, this association was not seen in those patients receiving specialist palliative care. Conclusions: Constipation remains a clinical problem in Irish cancer centres. Despite increased opioid use, patients receiving specialist palliative care were more likely to take laxatives and reported less constipation. Specialist palliative care practice should be studied in order to identify what are the transferable ‘ingredients’ of effective constipation management.

Background: Pain is a common symptom in patients who survive cancer and in those who live with progressive advanced disease. Systematic screening and documentation of pain are necessary to improve the quality of cancer pain treatment, because a key pain-related barrier is that patients are reluctant to discuss pain, due to fear that reporting pain will distract the healthcare professional from their cancer treatment. Methods: This study adopted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Data collection incorporated three strands. The first strand involved a quantitative enquiry in which medical chart reviews of patients (n=100) attending the medical oncology outpatient clinic were examined. The second qualitative strand comprised of semi-structured interviews with patients (n=10) attending that service. The third strand was qualitative and consisted of focus group discussions with healthcare professionals (n=12). Results: All 100 patients had cancer. The quantitative findings confirmed the suboptimum assessment and subsequent recording of patient’s pain, that seemed to afford a reality check for all healthcare professionals. For patients, the outcomes of the anti-cancer treatment were their priority, and pain was perceived as inevitable, being associated with a cancer diagnosis. There were multifaceted complexities voiced amongst healthcare professionals associated with balancing the benefits and harms aligned with treating cancer pain. Conclusions: Pain assessment in medical records was not systematically recorded by healthcare professionals. Patients were reluctant to self-report pain during their medical oncology outpatient review. The expectation that patients will self-report pain can be accommodated by healthcare professionals if a personalized pain goal is part of the cancer pain management plan during each clinical encounter. Healthcare professionals reported a need to take distinct responsibility for supplementing their dearth of knowledge, skills and beliefs regarding assessing and managing patients’ cancer pain. Optimal pain management stems from an interprofessional approach that was applied in this study design.