sangster‐gormley e., martin‐misener r., downe‐wamboldt b. & dicenso a. (2011) Factors affecting nurse practitioner role implementation in Canadian practice settings: an integrative review. Journal of Advanced Nursing67(6), 1178–1190. Abstract Aim.  To review the literature about the Canadian experience with nurse practitioner role implementation and identify influencing factors. Background.  Although nurse practitioners have been in existence for more than 40 years, their integration into healthcare systems has been challenging. While frameworks exist to guide implementation of these roles, clear identification of factors influencing role implementation may inform best practices. Given that Canada has witnessed considerable growth in nurse practitioner positions in the past decade, an exploration of its experience with role implementation is timely. Data sources.  A review of Canadian literature from 1997 to 2010 was conducted. Electronic databases including CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Source: Nursing Academic Edition, Medline, Social Science Index, PubMed, Web of Science and PsychINFO and government and professional organization websites were searched. Methods.  An integrative review was performed guided by Whittemore and Knafl’s method. Results.  Ten published studies and two provincial reports were included. Numerous facilitators and barriers to implementation were identified and analysed for themes. Three concepts influencing implementation emerged: involvement, acceptance and intention. Involvement is defined as stakeholders actively participating in the early stages of implementation. Acceptance is recognition and willingness to work with nurse practitioner. Intention relates to how the role is defined. Conclusion.  This integrative review revealed three factors that influence nurse practitioner role implementation in Canada: involvement, acceptance and intention. Strategies to enhance these factors may inform best practice role implementation processes.

BackgroundAt the time of this study (2009) the role of the nurse practitioner was new to the province of British Columbia. The provincial government gave the responsibility for implementing the role to health authorities. Managers of health authorities, many of whom were unfamiliar with the role, were responsible for identifying the need for the NP role, determining how the NP would function, and gaining team members’ acceptance for the new role.MethodThe purpose of the study was to explain the process of nurse practitioner role implementation as it was occurring and to identify factors that could enhance the implementation process. An explanatory, single case study with embedded units of analysis was used. The technique of explanation building was used in data analysis. Three primary health care settings in one health authority in British Columbia were purposively selected. Data sources included semi-structured interviews with participants (n=16) and key documents.ResultsThe results demonstrate the complexity of implementing a new role in settings unfamiliar with it. The findings suggest that early in the implementation process and after the nurse practitioner was hired, team members needed to clarify intentions for the role and they looked to senior health authority managers for assistance. Acceptance of the nurse practitioner was facilitated by team members’ prior knowledge of either the role or the individual nurse practitioner. Community health care providers needed to be involved in the implementation process and their acceptance developed as they gained knowledge and understanding of the role.ConclusionThe findings suggest that the interconnectedness of the concepts of intention, involvement and acceptance influences the implementation process and how the nurse practitioner is able to function in the setting. Without any one of the three concepts not only is implementation difficult, but it is also challenging for the nurse practitioner to fulfill role expectations. Implications for research, policy, practice and education are discussed.

BackgroundResearch evidence supports the positive impact on resident outcomes of nurse practitioners (NPs) working in long term care (LTC) homes. There are few studies that report the perceptions of residents and family members about the role of the NP in these settings. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of residents and family members regarding the role of the NP in LTC homes.MethodsThe study applied a qualitative descriptive approach. In-depth individual and focus group interviews were conducted with 35 residents and family members from four LTC settings that employed a NP. Conventional content analysis was used to identify themes and sub-themes.ResultsTwo major themes were identified: NPs were seen as providing resident and family-centred care and as providing enhanced quality of care. NPs established caring relationships with residents and families, providing both informational and emotional support, as well as facilitating their participation in decision making. Residents and families perceived the NP as improving availability and timeliness of care and helping to prevent unnecessary hospitalization.ConclusionsThe perceptions of residents and family members of the NP role in LTC are consistent with the concepts of person-centred and relationship-centred care. The relationships NPs develop with residents and families are a central means through which enhanced quality of care occurs. Given the limited use of NPs in LTC settings, there is an opportunity for health care policy and decision makers to address service inadequacies through strategic deployment of NPs in LTC settings. NPs can use their expert knowledge and skill to assist residents and families to make informed choices regarding their health care and maintain a positive care experience.

A strong and effective primary care capacity has been demonstrated to be crucial for controlling costs, improving outcomes, and ultimately enhancing the performance and sustainability of healthcare systems. However, current challenges are such that the future of primary care is unlikely to be an extension of the current dominant model. Profound environmental challenges are accumulating and are likely to drive significant transformation in the field. In this article we build upon the concept of "disruptive innovations" to analyze data from two separate research projects conducted in Quebec (Canada). Results from both projects suggest that introducing nurse practitioners into primary care teams has the potential to disrupt the status quo. We propose three scenarios for the future of primary care and for nurse practitioners' potential contribution to reforming primary care delivery models. In conclusion, we suggest that, like the canary in the coal mine, nurse practitioners' place in primary care will be an indicator of the extent to which healthcare system reforms have actually occurred.

Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles. Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization). Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012. Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n = 11), NP-transition (n = 5), NP-inpatient (n = 2), CNS-outpatient (n = 11), CNS-transition (n = 13), and CNS-inpatient (n = 1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity. Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.