Daniel E. Dnp Geller

When nurse practitioners (NPs) work to expand their scope of practice through state legislatures, the opposing lobbying groups are often physician-led organizations. The main argument against NP independence and limited scope of practice is that NP care is inherently inferior to that of physicians. However, more than three decades of research demonstrates quality and cost outcomes to be equal to or better than that of physicians. This article reviews a wide range of evidence documenting NP competency, satisfaction, and safety, as well as the challenges and consequences when limiting NP scope of practice. The evidence is clear and has not changed in over 30 years, NPs provide access to effective primary care in a variety of settings, equal in quality outcomes, safety, and cost-effectiveness compared with physicians.

The Research to Practice column is intended to improve the research critique skills of the advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) and to assist with the translation of research into practice. For each column, a topic and a particular research study are selected. The stage is set with a case presentation. The research article is then reviewed and critiqued, and the findings are discussed in relation to the case presented. Our current column discusses factors associated with the quality of the death and dying experience in the emergency department (ED) from the perspective of health care providers with implications for APRN practice and strategies using the following study: McCallum, K. J., Jackson, D., Walthall, H., & Aveyard, H. (2018). "Exploring the quality of the dying and death experience in the emergency department: An integrative literature review," International Journal of Nursing Studies, 85, 106-117. Our case involves a man with metastatic colon cancer where his oncology nurse practitioner recommends no further treatment and tells him he has approximately 6 months to live.