Objective The aims of this study were to identify and discuss reflections of ambulatory care nursing and the integral role of the clinical nurse specialist (CNS) in defining nursing practice in the ambulatory care setting. Description of Project Three CNSs and a CNS student, all assigned to the ambulatory care setting, discussed their experiences supporting nursing practice in the ambulatory care setting. Major reflections were identified, organized, and then expounded from personal experiences and published studies to highlight the impacts of the CNS in ambulatory care nursing. Outcomes Four major reflections were identified: ambulatory nursing is complex, ambulatory care nursing is in its infancy, ambulatory care nursing adds value, and opportunities exist for measuring the impact of ambulatory care nursing. Progress is being made in determining the role of the nurse in the ambulatory care setting, but more work is required. The CNS is prepared to define nursing practice in the ambulatory care setting and develop nursing-specific resources that support nurses in practicing to the full extent of their licensure. Conclusion The ambulatory care setting is expected to support the majority of the healthcare needs of the future. Ambulatory care nurses are well suited to meaningfully contribute to patient care. Evidence-based nursing practice in this setting is vital to ensure safe, quality patient care.

To determine the relationship between engagement with the novel register nurse care liaison (RNCL) and enrollment in care management compared with usual care in hospitalized patients. Primary Practice Setting: Patients in the hospital from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2019, who would be eligible for care management. Methodology and Sample: This was a retrospective cohort study. The authors compared a group of 419 patients who utilized the services of the RNCL at any time during their hospital stay with the RNCL to a propensity matched control group of 833 patients, which consisted of patients who were hospitalized during the same time as the RNCL intervention group. Our primary outcome was enrollment in care management programs. Our secondary outcome was 30-day readmissions, emergency department (ED) use, and office visits. The authors compared baseline characteristics and outcomes across groups using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and χ 2 tests and performed an adjusted analysis using conditional logistic regression models controlling for patient education and previous health care utilization. Results: The authors matched 419 patients who had engaged an RNCL to 833 patients in the usual care group; this comprised the analytic cohort for this study. The authors found 67.1% of patients enrolled in a care management program with RNCL compared with only 15.3% in usual care (p < .0001). The authors found higher rates of enrollment in all programs of care management. After the full adjustment, the odds ratio for enrollment in any program was 13.7 (95% confidence interval: 9.3, 20.2) for RNCL compared with usual care. There was no difference between groups with 30-day hospitalization or ED visit. Conclusion:In this matched study of 419 patients with RNCL engagement, the authors found significantly higher enrollment in all care management programs. Implications for Case Management Practice: These findings encourage further study of this care model. This could help enhance enrollment in care management programs, increase relationships between inpatient practice and ambulatory practice, as well as increase communication across the continuum of care.

Background The McIsaac criteria are a validated scoring system used to determine the likelihood of an acute sore throat being caused by group A streptococcus (GAS) to stratify patients who need strep testing. Objective We aim to compare McIsaac criteria obtained during face-to-face (f2f) and non-f2f encounters. Methods This retrospective study compared the percentage of positive GAS tests by McIsaac score for scores calculated during nurse protocol phone encounters, e-visits (electronic visits), and in person f2f clinic visits. Results There was no difference in percentages of positive strep tests between encounter types for any of the McIsaac scores. There were significantly more phone and e-visit encounters with any missing score components compared with f2f visits. For individual score components, there were significantly fewer e-visits missing fever and cough information compared with phone encounters and f2f encounters. F2f encounters were significantly less likely to be missing descriptions of tonsils and lymphadenopathy compared with phone and e-visit encounters. McIsaac scores of 4 had positive GAS rates of 55% to 68% across encounter types. There were 4 encounters not missing any score components with a McIsaac score of 0. None of these 4 encounters had a positive GAS test. Conclusions McIsaac scores of 4 collected during non-f2f care could be used to consider empiric treatment for GAS without testing if significant barriers to testing exist such as the COVID-19 pandemic or geographic barriers. Future studies should evaluate further whether non-f2f encounters with McIsaac scores of 0 can be safely excluded from GAS testing.

BACKGROUND The McIsaac criteria are a validated scoring system used to determine the likelihood of an acute sore throat being caused by group A streptococcus (GAS) to stratify patients who need strep testing. OBJECTIVE We aim to compare McIsaac criteria obtained during face-to-face (f2f) and non-f2f encounters. METHODS This retrospective study compared the percentage of positive GAS tests by McIsaac score for scores calculated during nurse protocol phone encounters, e-visits (electronic visits), and in person f2f clinic visits. RESULTS There was no difference in percentages of positive strep tests between encounter types for any of the McIsaac scores. There were significantly more phone and e-visit encounters with any missing score components compared with f2f visits. For individual score components, there were significantly fewer e-visits missing fever and cough information compared with phone encounters and f2f encounters. F2f encounters were significantly less likely to be missing descriptions of tonsils and lymphadenopathy compared with phone and e-visit encounters. McIsaac scores of 4 had positive GAS rates of 55% to 68% across encounter types. There were 4 encounters not missing any score components with a McIsaac score of 0. None of these 4 encounters had a positive GAS test. CONCLUSIONS McIsaac scores of 4 collected during non-f2f care could be used to consider empiric treatment for GAS without testing if significant barriers to testing exist such as the COVID-19 pandemic or geographic barriers. Future studies should evaluate further whether non-f2f encounters with McIsaac scores of 0 can be safely excluded from GAS testing.

Introduction Acute sore throat is a common complaint traditionally completed with an in-person visit. However, non-face-to-face telemedicine visits offer greater access at reduced cost. We evaluated patient/caregiver asynchronous text-based electronic visits (eVisits) for acute sore throat and whether there was concordance for individual components and total McIsaac score compared to a clinician’s assessment. eVisits were completed by patients and/or their caregivers via a secure patient portal. Methods In this retrospective study, we manually reviewed charts between February 2017 and July 2019 of patients who had an eVisit, in-person visit and group A streptococcal (GAS) test performed on the same day for an acute sore throat. We calculated a McIsaac score for eVisits and in-person visits, and compared each component and total score using Cohen’s kappa agreement statistic. Results There were 320 instances of patients who had an eVisit, in-person visit and GAS testing done on the same day. Approximately a third of eVisits were missing at least one McIsaac component, with the physical examination elements missing most commonly. Individual score congruence was moderate for cough (0.41), fair for fever (0.34) and slight for tonsillar swelling/exudate and lymphadenopathy (0.17 and 0.08, respectively), with total congruence being slight to fair (0.09–0.37). A McIsaac score of ≤1 showed moderate agreement (0.44). Visits with complete individual score components demonstrated improved congruence: substantial for cough (0.64), moderate for fever (0.57), fair for tonsillar swelling (0.3) and slight for lymphadenopathy (0.13). Discussion Overall agreement for individual score components was better for symptoms than it was for examination components, and was improved when data were complete. A McIsaac score of 1 or 0 had moderate agreement and thus could reasonably be safely used to exclude patients from GAS testing.