Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00080-1
Cathal T. Gallagher PhD, Fatima Saleem MPharm
Background
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is responsible for addressing concerns about UK-registered nurses and midwives through its fitness-to-practice process.
Purpose
To assess whether the NMC considers relevant factors at all stages of its deliberations into nurse misconduct, as required by the determinations in the appeal cases of Cohen v. General Medical Council (GMC), Zygmunt v. GMC, and Azzam v. GMC, and to assess whether the circumstances described in its Sanctions Guidance warranting the suspension or removal of a nurse from the practice register lead to that outcome.
Methods
Cases between July and September 2021 that highlighted aggravating circumstances deemed as serious enough to warrant removal were identified and included in this study. Specific factors, including patient safety and dishonesty, included when determining impairment of fitness to practice were compared with their subsequent consideration when determining the severity of sanction. Pearson’s χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests were used to detect any variation from the expected distribution of data.
Results
Fifty-nine cases met the inclusion criteria. Each of the four factors considered was more likely to be heard when determining a sanction after first being factored into the consideration of impairment. Where the aggravating factors of dishonesty or risk of harm to patients or the public were identified as an aspect of a nurse’s misconduct, the sanctions of suspension or removal were no more likely to be imposed than when they were absent.
Conclusion
The NMC does, in general, factor the rulings of High Court appeal cases into their deliberations on the impairment of fitness to practice; however, we were unable to demonstrate that dishonesty or risk of harm were more likely to result in suspension or removal of a nurse from the practice register.
{"title":"How the United Kingdom’s Nursing and Midwifery Council Applies Guidance When Exercising Its Disciplinary Functions","authors":"Cathal T. Gallagher PhD, Fatima Saleem MPharm","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00080-1","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00080-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is responsible for addressing concerns about UK-registered nurses and midwives through its fitness-to-practice process.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess whether the NMC considers relevant factors at all stages of its deliberations into nurse misconduct, as required by the determinations in the appeal cases of <em>Cohen v. General Medical Council</em> (GMC), <em>Zygmunt v. GMC</em>, and <em>Azzam v. GMC</em>, and to assess whether the circumstances described in its <em>Sanctions Guidance</em> warranting the suspension or removal of a nurse from the practice register lead to that outcome.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Cases between July and September 2021 that highlighted aggravating circumstances deemed as serious enough to warrant removal were identified and included in this study. Specific factors, including patient safety and dishonesty, included when determining impairment of fitness to practice were compared with their subsequent consideration when determining the severity of sanction. Pearson’s χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests were used to detect any variation from the expected distribution of data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Fifty-nine cases met the inclusion criteria. Each of the four factors considered was more likely to be heard when determining a sanction after first being factored into the consideration of impairment. Where the aggravating factors of dishonesty or risk of harm to patients or the public were identified as an aspect of a nurse’s misconduct, the sanctions of suspension or removal were no more likely to be imposed than when they were absent.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The NMC does, in general, factor the rulings of High Court appeal cases into their deliberations on the impairment of fitness to practice; however, we were unable to demonstrate that dishonesty or risk of harm were more likely to result in suspension or removal of a nurse from the practice register.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":"13 3","pages":"Pages 52-59"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42183708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00094-1
David C. Benton PhD, RN, FRCN, FAAN, Alyson S. Brenton RN, MSN, CNL, Peggy Seller Benson MSN, RN, MSHA, NE-BC, Katherine Stansfield MN, RN, Phyllis Johnson DNP, MSN, RN, FNP-BC
<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Sunset reviews, along with performance audits<span> and judicial reviews, orientate regulatory boards to act in the public interest and to address any weaknesses in the boards’ efficiency. Although sunset reviews gained popularity after their introduction in the 1970s and 1980s, their limited success in terminating agencies, along with the resources needed to conduct the reviews, have led to sunset legislation being repealed in several jurisdictions in favor of broader program evaluation or general audit processes. Increased interest in trying to limit the growth of the number of professions requiring a license to practice has seen a revival of interest in both sunrise and sunset reviews over the past decade.</span></p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To review existing sunset reports related to nursing and other health professions licensing boards and identify the foci, best practices, and criteria used by states in their evaluations.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A review and systematic examination of existing literature was performed with a mixed-methods approach and a range of analytical techniques. Manual and computer-based qualitative analyses were used to identify themes. Documents were analyzed for thematic content, the centrality of various themes, and how they may inform the development of more standardized approaches to assess the performance of regulatory bodies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 329 reports were identified from 24 US states. The 329 reports were analyzed and varied in length from 3 to 727 pages with an average report length of 68 pages. Collectively, 22,420 pages were analyzed. The review identified that many evaluations were based on opinion or survey responses rather than quantifiable or empirical evaluations. As a result, objective analysis of the approaches is difficult to assess, both within and across jurisdictions. The study identified 26 themes with considerable overlaps and connections between them. By coding various themes to the content of the reports, researchers identified groups of the most strongly related themes. The most connected group, <em>main areas of performance scrutiny,</em> relates to the major responsibilities and functions of licensing boards. The next most connected group encompasses the administrative and <em>operational concerns</em> involved in the conduct of the review. The least connected group is those elements that delineate the <em>authority and focus</em> of the review and encompass the basis of the legislative authority used to enable the review. Best and promising practices were also identified, including the following: (a) information provision (e.g., guidance notes that explain the process and provide public input); (b) comparative data sets (e.g., conducting reviews on a range of boards simultaneously); (c) accountability and publication of responses (e.g., improvement recommendations or commendation for best practices are made available).
{"title":"Thematic Analysis of Health Professions Sunset Reports: Foci, Gaps, Impacts, and Best Practices","authors":"David C. Benton PhD, RN, FRCN, FAAN, Alyson S. Brenton RN, MSN, CNL, Peggy Seller Benson MSN, RN, MSHA, NE-BC, Katherine Stansfield MN, RN, Phyllis Johnson DNP, MSN, RN, FNP-BC","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00094-1","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00094-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Sunset reviews, along with performance audits<span> and judicial reviews, orientate regulatory boards to act in the public interest and to address any weaknesses in the boards’ efficiency. Although sunset reviews gained popularity after their introduction in the 1970s and 1980s, their limited success in terminating agencies, along with the resources needed to conduct the reviews, have led to sunset legislation being repealed in several jurisdictions in favor of broader program evaluation or general audit processes. Increased interest in trying to limit the growth of the number of professions requiring a license to practice has seen a revival of interest in both sunrise and sunset reviews over the past decade.</span></p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To review existing sunset reports related to nursing and other health professions licensing boards and identify the foci, best practices, and criteria used by states in their evaluations.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A review and systematic examination of existing literature was performed with a mixed-methods approach and a range of analytical techniques. Manual and computer-based qualitative analyses were used to identify themes. Documents were analyzed for thematic content, the centrality of various themes, and how they may inform the development of more standardized approaches to assess the performance of regulatory bodies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 329 reports were identified from 24 US states. The 329 reports were analyzed and varied in length from 3 to 727 pages with an average report length of 68 pages. Collectively, 22,420 pages were analyzed. The review identified that many evaluations were based on opinion or survey responses rather than quantifiable or empirical evaluations. As a result, objective analysis of the approaches is difficult to assess, both within and across jurisdictions. The study identified 26 themes with considerable overlaps and connections between them. By coding various themes to the content of the reports, researchers identified groups of the most strongly related themes. The most connected group, <em>main areas of performance scrutiny,</em> relates to the major responsibilities and functions of licensing boards. The next most connected group encompasses the administrative and <em>operational concerns</em> involved in the conduct of the review. The least connected group is those elements that delineate the <em>authority and focus</em> of the review and encompass the basis of the legislative authority used to enable the review. Best and promising practices were also identified, including the following: (a) information provision (e.g., guidance notes that explain the process and provide public input); (b) comparative data sets (e.g., conducting reviews on a range of boards simultaneously); (c) accountability and publication of responses (e.g., improvement recommendations or commendation for best practices are made available).","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":"13 3","pages":"Pages S1-S68"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48324020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00078-3
Maryann Alexander PhD, RN, FAAN (Editor-in-Chief)
{"title":"Building the Future of Regulation on the Steps From Our Past 45 Years","authors":"Maryann Alexander PhD, RN, FAAN (Editor-in-Chief)","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00078-3","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00078-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":"13 3","pages":"Page 3"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48278073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00083-7
Nicole Livanos JD, MMP
{"title":"Legislative Highlight: Indiana House Bill 1003","authors":"Nicole Livanos JD, MMP","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00083-7","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00083-7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":"13 3","pages":"Pages 60-62"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42442593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00064-3
{"title":"Corrections to Lavin et al. (2022)","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00064-3","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00064-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":"13 2","pages":"Page 64"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2155825622000643/pdfft?md5=eb77529d8472011f2f865d467860d097&pid=1-s2.0-S2155825622000643-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42702739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00062-X
Nicole Kaminski-Ozturk PhD, Richard Smiley MS, Elizabeth Zhong PhD, Brendan Martin PhD
Background
Concerns about the competence of repeat NCLEX test takers have persisted, resulting in a patchwork of regulatory policies that limit the number of test attempts or the conditions under which a candidate can retest in certain U.S. jurisdictions.
Purpose
To examine possible corrolaries between repeat test-taker status and future practice discipline and to investigate the relationship between time-to-test and repeat testing.
Methods
Data were collected on nearly a quarter of a million registered nurse (RN) and practical nurse (PN) NCLEX candidates who passed the examination between 2013 and 2017. Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to assess the likelihood of discipline (0, 1) and the need for repeat testing (0, 1). Propensity score matching was employed to address initial group imbalance on all available covariates for models assessing discipline.
Results
The rate of discipline among the RN (1.0%, n = 2,029) and PN (1.8%, n = 749) samples was low. After applying propensity score matching, repeat test-taker status was found to be weakly aligned with practice discipline for RNs (p = .047) but was not correlated for PNs (p = .13). In contrast, adjusting for sex, race, ethnicity, and age, RN candidates who delayed taking the test for 60 days were 5% more likely to need to retake the NCLEX (p < .001). For PN candidates, a delay of 90 days was associated with a 9% increase in the likelihood of needing to retake the NCLEX (p < .001).
Conclusion
Empirical evidence supports the comparable safety profile of single– and multi–test-taker groups, underscoring the need to revaluate restrictions that limit the conditions under which candidates can retest. Furthermore, ongoing outreach to nursing programs to emphasize the importance of prompt NCLEX testing and the possible deleterious effects of delays, by even a few months, is important.
对复读NCLEX考试考生能力的担忧一直存在，导致监管政策的拼凑，限制考试次数或考生可以在某些美国司法管辖区重新考试的条件。目的探讨复试者状态与未来执业纪律之间可能存在的相关性，并调查复试时间与复试之间的关系。方法收集2013年至2017年通过NCLEX考试的近25万注册护士(RN)和执业护士(PN)考生的数据。使用多变量广义估计方程模型来评估学科的可能性(0,1)和重复检验的必要性(0,1)。倾向得分匹配用于解决评估学科模型中所有可用协变量的初始组不平衡。结果RN (1.0%， n = 2029)和PN (1.8%， n = 749)样本的纪律性较低。应用倾向得分匹配后，发现重复考生状态与RNs的练习纪律弱相关(p = 0.047)，但与PNs无关(p = 0.13)。相比之下，调整性别、种族、民族和年龄后，延迟60天参加考试的注册护士考生需要重新参加NCLEX考试的可能性增加了5% (p <措施)。对于PN考生来说，延迟90天需要重新参加NCLEX考试的可能性增加9% (p <措施)。结论:经验证据支持单考生组和多考生组的可比性安全性，强调有必要重新评估限制考生复试条件的限制。此外，不断扩大护理项目，强调及时进行NCLEX检测的重要性，以及即使延迟几个月也可能产生的有害影响，这是很重要的。
{"title":"A Retrospective Review of NCLEX Candidates’ Testing Behavior: Examining the Relationship Between Repeat Testing, Time-to-Test, and Discipline","authors":"Nicole Kaminski-Ozturk PhD, Richard Smiley MS, Elizabeth Zhong PhD, Brendan Martin PhD","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00062-X","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00062-X","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Concerns about the competence of repeat NCLEX test takers have persisted, resulting in a patchwork of regulatory policies that limit the number of test attempts or the conditions under which a candidate can retest in certain U.S. jurisdictions.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To examine possible corrolaries between repeat test-taker status and future practice discipline and to investigate the relationship between time-to-test and repeat testing.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data were collected on nearly a quarter of a million registered nurse (RN) and practical nurse (PN) NCLEX candidates who passed the examination between 2013 and 2017. Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to assess the likelihood of discipline (0, 1) and the need for repeat testing (0, 1). Propensity score matching was employed to address initial group imbalance on all available covariates for models assessing discipline.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The rate of discipline among the RN (1.0%, <em>n</em> = 2,029) and PN (1.8%, <em>n</em> = 749) samples was low. After applying propensity score matching, repeat test-taker status was found to be weakly aligned with practice discipline for RNs (<em>p</em> = .047) but was not correlated for PNs (<em>p</em> = .13). In contrast, adjusting for sex, race, ethnicity, and age, RN candidates who delayed taking the test for 60 days were 5% more likely to need to retake the NCLEX (<em>p</em> < .001). For PN candidates, a delay of 90 days was associated with a 9% increase in the likelihood of needing to retake the NCLEX (<em>p</em> < .001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Empirical evidence supports the comparable safety profile of single– and multi–test-taker groups, underscoring the need to revaluate restrictions that limit the conditions under which candidates can retest. Furthermore, ongoing outreach to nursing programs to emphasize the importance of prompt NCLEX testing and the possible deleterious effects of delays, by even a few months, is important.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":"13 2","pages":"Pages 4-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41425240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00059-X
Tracey L. Adams PhD
Background
In Canada and the United Kingdom, there is discussion about amalgamating nursing and other professional regulatory bodies to improve efficiency; however, there is a dearth of research on the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation.
Purpose
To begin to address this gap, this article explores Canadian regulatory leaders’ views about professional regulator amalgamation.
Methods
In-depth interviews were conducted with 83 Canadian regulatory leaders (in regulatory bodies, government, and other related roles). Qualitative description analyses were conducted on interview transcripts.
Results
Participants identified several advantages of amalgamation, believing it was valuable for small, under-resourced regulators, as well as for regulators in the same field, such as nursing and oral healthcare. Some participants anticipated improvements in regulatory effectiveness that would benefit regulators, governments, and society. However, participants also raised concerns about amalgamation: prioritizing efficiency over effectiveness, lack of evidence of success, and concerns about inequality. Participants also provided advice to facilitate amalgamation.
Conclusion
Limited evidence and conflicting views on this regulatory change encourage caution among those pursuing amalgamation of professional regulators. It is clear that collaboration is key to successful amalgamation; thus, it should not be forced or mandated.
{"title":"Amalgamation of Professional Regulators: Conflicting Perceptions and Beliefs Among Canadian Regulatory Leaders","authors":"Tracey L. Adams PhD","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00059-X","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00059-X","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>In Canada and the United Kingdom, there is discussion about amalgamating nursing and other professional regulatory bodies to improve efficiency; however, there is a dearth of research on the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To begin to address this gap, this article explores Canadian regulatory leaders’ views about professional regulator amalgamation.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In-depth interviews were conducted with 83 Canadian regulatory leaders (in regulatory bodies, government, and other related roles). Qualitative description analyses were conducted on interview transcripts.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Participants identified several advantages of amalgamation, believing it was valuable for small, under-resourced regulators, as well as for regulators in the same field, such as nursing and oral healthcare. Some participants anticipated improvements in regulatory effectiveness that would benefit regulators, governments, and society. However, participants also raised concerns about amalgamation: prioritizing efficiency over effectiveness, lack of evidence of success, and concerns about inequality. Participants also provided advice to facilitate amalgamation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Limited evidence and conflicting views on this regulatory change encourage caution among those pursuing amalgamation of professional regulators. It is clear that collaboration is key to successful amalgamation; thus, it should not be forced or mandated.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":"13 2","pages":"Pages 25-33"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47742448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00061-8
Ellen T. Kurtzman PhD, MPH, RN, FAAN, Lauren V. Ghazal PhD, FNP-BC, Shirley Girouard PhD, RN, FAAN, Chenjuan Ma PhD, MSN, Barbara Martin PhD, ACNP-MPH, Blake T. McGee PhD, MPH, RN, Colleen A. Pogue PhD, RN, Kathryn A. Riman PhD, RN, Maggie C. Root MSN, RN, CPNP-AC, CHPPN, Amelia E. Schlak PhD, RN, Jamie M. Smith PhD, RN, Deonni P. Stolldorf PhD, RN, Jacqueline Nikpour Townley PhD, RN, Eleanor Turi MPhil, BSN, RN, CCRN, Hay-ley Germack PhD, MHS, RN
{"title":"Nursing Workforce Challenges in the Postpandemic World","authors":"Ellen T. Kurtzman PhD, MPH, RN, FAAN, Lauren V. Ghazal PhD, FNP-BC, Shirley Girouard PhD, RN, FAAN, Chenjuan Ma PhD, MSN, Barbara Martin PhD, ACNP-MPH, Blake T. McGee PhD, MPH, RN, Colleen A. Pogue PhD, RN, Kathryn A. Riman PhD, RN, Maggie C. Root MSN, RN, CPNP-AC, CHPPN, Amelia E. Schlak PhD, RN, Jamie M. Smith PhD, RN, Deonni P. Stolldorf PhD, RN, Jacqueline Nikpour Townley PhD, RN, Eleanor Turi MPhil, BSN, RN, CCRN, Hay-ley Germack PhD, MHS, RN","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00061-8","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00061-8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":"13 2","pages":"Pages 49-60"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9299514/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9318754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号