Aim This study assessed the application of advanced practice nursing competencies in cancer care to identify obstacles to their full implementation. Background Internationally, the implementation of advanced practice nursing roles depends on the context and environment, which shape the definition, scope and competencies associated with these roles. Methods Nurses participated in two rounds of an online Delphi survey about the competencies of advanced practice oncology nurses. The threshold for expert consensus was set at 75%. Results Eleven competency domains were proposed; all yielded consensus of over 75%. However, for 57.8% of the specific competencies proposed in round 1 and for 62.2% in round 2, there was no consensus on which were applied in practice. There was more agreement on the competencies applied in the domains of direct clinical practice, consultation and collaboration and interprofessional relations than in dimensions such as health care promotion, quality improvement, evidence‐based practice and research. Barriers related to unimplemented competencies were identified. Conclusions The competencies applied in advanced practice nursing reflect incomplete development of these roles. Domains related to direct clinical practice, consultation and collaboration and interprofessional relations are relatively well developed, whereas those related to leadership, research, evidence‐based practice and quality improvement are not. The identified barriers hindering implementation of some competencies can inform strategies to develop this role in cancer care. Implications for Nursing Management Hospital administrators and nurse managers should reflect and be mindful of the development of advanced practice nurse (APN) competencies along with the challenges associated with implementing advanced practice roles.
Background In Spain, palliative care (PC) nursing is not a recognized specialization and PC nurses do not receive systematic specialized academic training in PC. To ensure the quality of PC in Spain, the Spanish Association of Palliative Care Nursing has been working since 2011 to design a model of competencies for PC nurses. Objective: Verify whether a sample of Spanish PC nurses accepts the proposed model of PC nursing competencies describing their work. Methods: Descriptive cross-sectional observational study based on an ad-hoc questionnaire about 98 proposed competencies, which participants rated for whether they belong to the purview of PC nurses and for their degree of concordance with their own practice and their degree of importance in PC nursing. Competencies receiving approval by more than 75% of participants for the three dimensions were considered to have been accepted by consensus. Mixed logistical models were developed to study the association between demographic variables and the responses. Results: Sixty-two out of 98 proposed competencies were accepted by more than 75% of participants. We therefore considered these competencies to have been accepted by consensus. Thirty-six proposed competencies failed to meet the threshold of 75% acceptance. For competencies that were accepted overall, participants with more than 10 years of experience in PC and participants with specialized training in PC were more likely to report that these competencies were part of the purview of PC nursing. Participants age >50 were less likely to report that competencies related to research concorded with their practice. Participants accepted the importance of all 98 proposed competencies. Conclusion: The variables of experience, training and age had a statistically significant relationship with the acceptance or rejection of the proposed competencies on the basis of purview and concordance. Further research is necessary to understand more fully these relationships to eventually arrive at a consensus model for the competencies of PC nurses.
Background Spain currently lacks a competency framework for palliative care nursing. Having such a framework would help to advance this field in academic, governmental, and health management contexts. In a previous phase of research, 98 proposed competencies were presented to a sample of palliative care nurses. They accepted 62 of them and rejected 36. Methods In the present phase, we conducted a qualitative exploratory study using consensus techniques with two modified nominal groups to gain an understanding of why the 36 competencies had been rejected. Twenty nurses from different areas of palliative care (direct care, teaching, management, research) participated. We conducted a thematic analysis using NVivo12 to identify meaning units and group them into larger thematic categories. Results Participants attributed the lack of consensus on the 36 competencies to four main reasons: the rejection of standardised nursing language, the context in which nurses carry out palliative care and other factors that are external to the care itself, the degree of specificity of the proposed competency (too little or too great), and the complexity of nursing care related to the end of life and/or death. Conclusions Based on the results, we propose reparative actions, such as reformulating the competencies expressed in nursing terminology to describe them as specific behaviours and insisting on the participation of nurses in developing institutional policies and strategies so that competencies related to development, leadership and professional commitment can be implemented. It is essential to promote greater consensus on the definition and levels of nursing intervention according to criteria of complexity and to advocate for adequate training, regulation, and accreditation of PC expert practice. Locally, understanding why the 36 competencies were rejected can help Spanish palliative care nurses reach a shared competency framework. More broadly, our consensus methodology and our findings regarding the causes for rejection may be useful to other countries that are in the process of formalising or reviewing their palliative care nursing model.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.