Purpose Nurse practitioners (NPs) deliver a wide array of healthcare services in a variety of settings. The purpose of this study was to examine the practice patterns and organizational commitment of inpatient NPs. Methods A quantitative design was used with a convenience sample (n = 183) of NPs who attended the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) national conference. The NPs were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire, the Practice Patterns of Acute Nurse Practitioners tool and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. Conclusions Over 85% of inpatient practice time consists of direct and indirect patient care activities. The remaining nonclinical activities of education, research, and administration were less evident in the NP's workweek. This indicates that the major role of inpatient NPs continues to be management of acutely ill patients. Moderate commitment was noted in the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. Implications for practice Supportive hospital/nursing leadership should acknowledge the value of the clinical and nonclinical roles of inpatient NPs as they can contribute to the operational effectiveness of their organization. By fostering the organizational commitment behaviors of identification, loyalty, and involvement, management can reap the benefits of these professionally dedicated providers.

No abstract

No abstract

Surgical innovation promises improvements in healthcare, but it also raises ethical issues including risks of harm to patients, conflicts of interest and increased injustice in access to health care. In this article, we focus on risks of injustice, and use a case study of robotic prostatectomy to identify features of surgical innovation that risk introducing or exacerbating injustices. Interpreting justice as encompassing matters of both efficiency and equity, we first examine questions relating to government decisions about whether to publicly fund access to innovative treatments. Here the case of robotic prostatectomy exemplifies the difficulty of accommodating healthcare priorities such as improving the health of marginalized groups. It also illustrates challenges with estimating the likely long-term costs and benefits of a new intervention, the difficulty of comparing outcomes of an innovative treatment to those of established treatments, and the further complexity associated with patient and surgeon preferences. Once the decision has been made to fund a new procedure, separate issues of justice arise at the level of providing care to individual patients. Here, the case of robotic prostatectomy exemplifies how features of surgical innovation, such as surgeon learning curves and the need for an adequate volume of cases at a treatment centre, can exacerbate injustices associated with treatment cost and the logistics of travelling for treatment. Drawing on our analysis, we conclude by making a number of recommendations for the just introduction of surgical innovations.