Background Clinical Research Nurses practice across a wide spectrum of roles and settings within the global research enterprise. Clinical Research Nurses working with clinical trials face a dual fidelity in their role, balancing integrity of the protocol and quality care for participants. Aims The purpose of this study was to describe Clinical Research Nurses’ experiences in clinical trials, educational preparation, and career pathways, to gain a deeper understanding of clinical research nursing contributions to the clinical research enterprise. Methods An internet-based survey was conducted to collect demographic data and free text responses to four open-ended queries related to the experience of nurses working in clinical trials research, educational preparation, and role pathways. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze free text responses. The study was guided by the Clinical Research Nursing Domain of Practice and Duffy’s Quality Caring Model of relationship centered professional encounters. Results Forty clinical research nurses responded to the open-ended questions with themes related to dual fidelity to study participants and protocols, relationships and nursing care, interdisciplinary team membership and contributing to science, emerging from the data. Gaps in educational preparation and professional pathways were identified. Conclusion This study provides insights to unique clinical research nurse practice contributions in the clinical trial research enterprise within a context of Duffy’s Quality Caring Model.

Background The role of Clinical Research Nurses across the globe has not been evaluated to identify similarities or differences among specific activities. Aims This study’s aims were to determine differences in Clinical Research Nurses most frequently performed activities, if these activities are reflective of those previously described in the literature, and job titles Clinical Research Nurses use to self-identify. Methods An online cross-sectional survey distributed via snowball sampling through email, social media, and research nurses’ networks included questions on frequency of activities performed and information related to job titles. Pearson’s chi-square test is analyzed for associations between the groups. Results Respondents returned 252 questionnaires, 233 were eligible for analysis. Research nurse activities performed internationally showed both similarities and differences. Any between country comparisons will be limited to the United States and the United Kingdom. The three most common tasks reported were recruitment 120 (51.5%), monitoring the research participant for potential adverse events 187 (80.2%) and providing nursing leadership within the interdisciplinary team 169 (72.5%). Conclusion Considering the context and range of activities of the original Clinical Research Nursing Domain of Practice, broadening the framework to include the leadership domain will better serve as a foundation for the specialty practice.