BackgroundThis integrative review synthesises research studies that have investigated the perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in primary health care. The aggregation of evidence on barriers and facilitators to working collaboratively and experiences about the processes of collaboration is of value to understand success factors and factors that impede collaborative working relationships.MethodsAn integrative review, which used systematic review processes, was undertaken to summarise qualitative and quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2012. Databases searched were the Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Informit and ProQuest. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Study findings were extracted relating to a) barriers and facilitators to collaborative working and b) views and experiences about the process of collaboration. The findings were narratively synthesised, supported by tabulation.Results27 studies conducted in seven different countries met the inclusion criteria. Content analysis identified a number of barriers and facilitators of collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners. By means of data comparison five themes were developed in relation to perceptions and understanding of collaboration. Nurse practitioners and medical practitioners have differing views on the essentials of collaboration and on supervision and autonomous nurse practitioner practice. Medical practitioners who have a working experience with NPs express more positive attitudes towards collaboration. Both professional groups report concerns and negative experiences with collaborative practice but also value certain advantages of collaboration.ConclusionsThe review shows that working in collaboration is a slow progression. Exposure to working together helps to overcome professional hurdles, dispel concerns and provide clarity around roles and the meaning of collaboration of NPs and MPs. Guidelines on liability and better funding strategies are necessary to facilitate collaborative practice whether barriers lie in individual behaviours or in broader policies.

BackgroundIn 2010 policy changes were introduced to the Australian healthcare system that granted nurse practitioners access to the public health insurance scheme (Medicare) subject to a collaborative arrangement with a medical practitioner. These changes facilitated nurse practitioner practice in primary healthcare settings. This study investigated the experiences and perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners who worked together under the new policies and aimed to identify enablers of collaborative practice models.MethodsA multiple case study of five primary healthcare sites was undertaken, applying mixed methods research. Six nurse practitioners, 13 medical practitioners and three practice managers participated in the study. Data were collected through direct observations, documents and semi-structured interviews as well as questionnaires including validated scales to measure the level of collaboration, satisfaction with collaboration and beliefs in the benefits of collaboration. Thematic analysis was undertaken for qualitative data from interviews, observations and documents, followed by deductive analysis whereby thematic categories were compared to two theoretical models of collaboration. Questionnaire responses were summarised using descriptive statistics.ResultsUsing the scale measurements, nurse practitioners and medical practitioners reported high levels of collaboration, were highly satisfied with their collaborative relationship and strongly believed that collaboration benefited the patient. The three themes developed from qualitative data showed a more complex and nuanced picture: 1) Structures such as government policy requirements and local infrastructure disadvantaged nurse practitioners financially and professionally in collaborative practice models; 2) Participants experienced the influence and consequences of individual role enactment through the co-existence of overlapping, complementary, traditional and emerging roles, which blurred perceptions of legal liability and reimbursement for shared patient care; 3) Nurse practitioners’ and medical practitioners’ adjustment to new routines and facilitating the collaborative work relied on the willingness and personal commitment of individuals.ConclusionsFindings of this study suggest that the willingness of practitioners and their individual relationships partially overcame the effect of system restrictions. However, strategic support from healthcare reform decision-makers is needed to strengthen nurse practitioner positions and ensure the sustainability of collaborative practice models in primary healthcare.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0503-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background and Purpose— We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to improve triage, treatment, and transfer for patients with acute stroke admitted to the emergency department (ED). Methods— A pragmatic, blinded, multicenter, parallel group, cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted between July 2013 and September 2016 in 26 Australian EDs with stroke units and tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) protocols. Hospitals, stratified by state and tPA volume, were randomized 1:1 to intervention or usual care by an independent statistician. Eligible ED patients had acute stroke <48 hours from symptom onset and were admitted to the stroke unit via ED. Our nurse-initiated T 3 intervention targeted (1) Triage to Australasian Triage Scale category 1 or 2; (2) Treatment: tPA eligibility screening and appropriate administration; clinical protocols for managing fever, hyperglycemia, and swallowing; (3) prompt (<4 hours) stroke unit Transfer. It was implemented using (1) workshops to identify barriers and solutions; (2) face-to-face, online, and written education; (3) national and local clinical opinion leaders; and (4) email, telephone, and site visit follow-up. Outcomes were assessed at the patient level. Primary outcome: 90-day death or dependency (modified Rankin Scale score of ≥2); secondary outcomes: functional dependency (Barthel Index ≥95), health status (Short Form [36] Health Survey), and ED quality of care (Australasian Triage Scale; monitoring and management of tPA, fever, hyperglycemia, swallowing; prompt transfer). Intention-to-treat analysis adjusted for preintervention outcomes and ED clustering. Patients, outcome assessors, and statisticians were masked to group allocation. Results— Twenty-six EDs (13 intervention and 13 control) recruited 2242 patients (645 preintervention and 1597 postintervention). There were no statistically significant differences at follow-up for 90-day modified Rankin Scale (intervention: n=400 [53.5%]; control n=266 [48.7%]; P =0.24) or secondary outcomes. Conclusions— This evidence-based, theory-informed implementation trial, previously effective in stroke units, did not change patient outcomes or clinician behavior in the complex ED environment. Implementation trials are warranted to evaluate alternative approaches for improving ED stroke care. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN12614000939695.

Psychological well-being may be improved by enhancing perceived control over health and daily life, promoting an optimistic outlook by facilitating access to social support from other heart transplant recipients and ensuring post-transplant recipient-caregiver partnerships adequately support the transition back to independence.

Using complex intervention methodology for recruitment and its planning enhances a nurse researcher's awareness of the challenges and pitfalls recruitment poses and may translate to improved recruitment rates and overall success of clinical trials.

Triangulation of findings will generate a comprehensive understanding of how collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners in Australia occurs in the primary care setting. The results of this study will inform nurse practitioners, medical practitioners practice managers and policy makers on successful models of collaboration.

Background The implementation of evidence-based protocols for stroke management in the emergency department (ED) for the appropriate triage, administration of tissue plasminogen activator to eligible patients, management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing, and prompt transfer to a stroke unit were evaluated in an Australian cluster-randomised trial (T3 trial) conducted at 26 emergency departments. There was no reduction in 90-day death or dependency nor improved processes of ED care. We conducted an a priori planned process influential factors that impacted upon protocol uptake. Methods Qualitative face-to-face interviews were conducted with purposively selected ED and stroke clinicians from two high- and two low-performing intervention sites about their views on factors that influenced protocol uptake. All Trial State Co-ordinators (n = 3) who supported the implementation at the 13 intervention sites were also interviewed. Data were analysed thematically using normalisation process theory as a sensitising framework to understand key findings, and compared and contrasted between interviewee groups. Results Twenty-five ED and stroke clinicians, and three Trial State Co-ordinators were interviewed. Three major themes represented key influences on evidence uptake: (i) Readiness to change: reflected strategies to mobilise and engage clinical teams to foster cognitive participation and collective action; (ii) Fidelity to the protocols: reflected that beliefs about the evidence underpinning the protocols impeded the development of a shared understanding about the applicability of the protocols in the ED context (coherence); and (iii) Boundaries of care: reflected that appraisal (reflexive monitoring) by ED and stroke teams about their respective boundaries of clinical practice impeded uptake of the protocols. Conclusions Despite initial high ‘buy-in’ from clinicians, a theoretically informed and comprehensive implementation strategy was unable to overcome system and clinician level barriers. Initiatives to drive change and integrate protocols rested largely with senior nurses who had to overcome contextual factors that fell outside their control, including low medical engagement, beliefs about the supporting evidence and perceptions of professional boundaries. To maximise uptake of evidence and adherence to intervention fidelity in complex clinical settings such as ED cost-effective strategies are needed to overcome these barriers. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000939695).

BackgroundInternationally recognised evidence-based guidelines recommend appropriate triage of patients with stroke in emergency departments (EDs), administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), and proactive management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing before prompt transfer to a stroke unit to maximise outcomes. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness in EDs of a theory-informed, nurse-initiated, intervention to improve multidisciplinary triage, treatment and transfer (T3) of patients with acute stroke to improve 90-day death and dependency. Organisational and contextual factors associated with intervention uptake also will be evaluated.MethodsThis prospective, multicentre, parallel group, cluster randomised trial with blinded outcome assessment will be conducted in EDs of hospitals with stroke units in three Australian states and one territory. EDs will be randomised 1:1 within strata defined by state and tPA volume to receive either the T3 intervention or no additional support (control EDs). Our T3 intervention comprises an evidence-based care bundle targeting: (1) triage: routine assignment of patients with suspected stroke to Australian Triage Scale category 1 or 2; (2) treatment: screening for tPA eligibility and administration of tPA where applicable; instigation of protocols for management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing; and (3) transfer: prompt admission to the stroke unit. We will use implementation science behaviour change methods informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework [1, 2] consisting of (i) workshops to determine barriers and local solutions; (ii) mixed interactive and didactic education; (iii) local clinical opinion leaders; and (iv) reminders in the form of email, telephone and site visits. Our primary outcome measure is 90 days post-admission death or dependency (modified Rankin Scale >2). Secondary outcomes are health status (SF-36), functional dependency (Barthel Index), quality of life (EQ-5D); and quality of care outcomes, namely, monitoring and management practices for thrombolysis, fever, hyperglycaemia, swallowing and prompt transfer. Outcomes will be assessed at the patient level. A separate process evaluation will examine contextual factors to successful intervention uptake. At the time of publication, EDs have been randomised and the intervention is being implemented.DiscussionThis theoretically informed intervention is aimed at addressing important gaps in care to maximise 90-day health outcomes for patients with stroke.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000939695. Registered 2 September 2014. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0503-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.