Development of nurse practitioner metaspecialty clinical practice standards: A national sequential mixed methods study

Abstract

Aim To achieve profession‐wide consensus on clinical practice standards for six broad Australian nurse practitioner specialty areas (termed metaspecialties). Design Sequential mixed methods with initial interpretive study (Interpretive Phase) followed by modified three‐round Delphi study (Survey Phase). Methods Participants from all Australian jurisdictions were recruited. Main eligibility criterion was current endorsement as a nurse practitioner for 12 or more months. Interpretive Phase comprised in‐depth interviews of purposeful sample of nurse practitioners to identify clinical care activities and practice processes. Six sets of draft clinical practice standards relevant to six previously identified metaspecialties were developed. Outcome informed Round 1 of Survey Phase (six nested web‐based Delphi surveys), with draft standards reviewed profession‐wide. Responses comprised scoring using Likert scales to calculate content validity indexes for individual standards with qualitative responses supporting decision‐making. For Rounds 2 and 3, participants rated relevancy of original or revised standards after consideration of individual and group feedback. The study was conducted 2014–2017. Results Interpretive Phase: Analysis of interview data with 16 nurse practitioners provided 75 draft standards. Survey Phase: 221 nurse practitioners completed Round 1 (20% of then eligible Australian nurse practitioners). Weighted respondent retention was 92%. Seventy‐three standards were validated, with final content validity indices of 92–100%. Scale‐level indices were 98%, strongly validating metaspecialty taxonomy. Conclusion A research‐derived, professionally endorsed suite of nurse practitioner clinical practice standards was developed. This provides a broad clinical learning structure with metaspecialties guiding nurse practitioner student clinical education. Impact The clinical practice standards and metaspecialty taxonomy strengthen nurse practitioner clinical education and professional development nationally and internationally. These novel study methods and findings are applicable to advanced specialty roles in other health professions.

Practice pathways, education, and regulation influencing nurse practitioners’ decision to provide primary care: a rapid scoping review

“…More recently, it has been suggested that implementing standardised education streams aligned with national health priorities (including primary health) and replacing the significant advanced practice experience hours with competency-based assessments [ 37 ]. Another recent Australian study sought industry consensus on key skills and competencies for various NP meta-specialities, including primary care, to help guide local and international NP education [ 38 , 39 ].…”

Stepping outside national borders: International active learning educational collaboration events

“…This lack of standardization can lead to confusion and inconsistencies in the recognition and utilization of APNs. Title protection for APNs is essential to ensuring the quality and safety of healthcare services and enabling role regulation (Gardner et al., 2021; Wheeler et al., 2022). International collaborations and partnerships can help address these issues by providing opportunities for exchanging knowledge, expertise, and experience, promoting cultural competence and standardization, and advancing nursing education and practice.…”

Understanding the practice patterns of nephrology nurse practitioners in Australia

“…While A. Gardner et al (2021) identified that specific standards for practice for NNP have been articulated, and recently updated (see Bonner et al, 2021), little is known about the practice profile and patterns of NNP in Australia.…”

“…G. Gardner et al (2016), in a national survey of Australian nurses also using the modified Strong Model of Advanced Practice, found that NP have different practice patterns to those of registered nurses, clinical nurse specialists, clinical nurse consultants and nurse educators. While A. Gardner et al (2021) identified that specific standards for practice for NNP have been articulated, and recently updated (see Bonner et al, 2021), little is known about the practice profile and patterns of NNP in Australia.…”