Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00085-0
Amy Witkoski Stimpfel PhD, RN, Lloyd Goldsamt PhD, Eva Liang MA, Deena K. Costa PhD, RN, FAAN
Background
The COVID-19 pandemic put extreme stress on an already strained healthcare workforce. Suboptimal work organization, exacerbated by the pandemic, is associated with poor worker, patient, and organizational outcomes. However, there are limited qualitative studies exploring how the interconnections of work organization factors related to shift work, sleep, and work stress influence registered nurses and their work performance in the United States.
Purpose
We sought to understand how nurses perceive work organization factors that impact their performance. Knowledge in this area could direct efforts to implement policies and design tailored interventions to support nurses in the post-pandemic period.
Methods
We used a qualitative descriptive design with the Work, Stress, and Health framework as an overarching guide to understand the interconnectedness of work organization factors, work stress, and outcomes. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two anonymous, asynchronous virtual focus groups (i.e., threaded discussion boards) in 2019. Registered nurses (N = 23) working across the United States were recruited and engaged until data saturation was achieved. Directed content analysis was used to analyze the data.
Results
Findings aligned with the Work, Stress, and Health framework and revealed three themes: (1) “Our Voice Should Matter” (nurses’ desire to have their voices heard in staffing policies); (2) “Tired But Wired” (the harmful cycle of work stress, rumination, and poor sleep); and (3) “We’re Only Human” (nurses’ physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion linked to critical performance impairments).
Conclusion
These findings underscore that high work stress and poor sleep were present before the pandemic and impacted nurses’ perceptions of their performance. As leaders look forward to recovery and work redesign efforts, these findings can guide decision-making and resource allocation for optimal nurse, patient, and organization outcomes.
{"title":"Work Organization Factors Associated With Nurses’ Stress, Sleep, and Performance: A Pre-pandemic Analysis","authors":"Amy Witkoski Stimpfel PhD, RN, Lloyd Goldsamt PhD, Eva Liang MA, Deena K. Costa PhD, RN, FAAN","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00085-0","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00085-0","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The COVID-19 pandemic put extreme stress on an already strained healthcare workforce. Suboptimal work organization, exacerbated by the pandemic, is associated with poor worker, patient, and organizational outcomes. However, there are limited qualitative studies exploring how the interconnections of work organization factors related to shift work, sleep, and work stress influence registered nurses and their work performance in the United States.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>We sought to understand how nurses perceive work organization factors that impact their performance. Knowledge in this area could direct efforts to implement policies and design tailored interventions to support nurses in the post-pandemic period.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We used a qualitative descriptive design with the <em>Work, Stress, and Health</em> framework as an overarching guide to understand the interconnectedness of work organization factors, work stress, and outcomes. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two anonymous, asynchronous virtual focus groups (i.e., threaded discussion boards) in 2019. Registered nurses (<em>N</em> = 23) working across the United States were recruited and engaged until data saturation was achieved. Directed content analysis was used to analyze the data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Findings aligned with the <em>Work, Stress, and Health</em> framework and revealed three themes: (1) “Our Voice Should Matter” (nurses’ desire to have their voices heard in staffing policies); (2) “Tired But Wired” (the harmful cycle of work stress, rumination, and poor sleep); and (3) “We’re Only Human” (nurses’ physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion linked to critical performance impairments).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>These findings underscore that high work stress and poor sleep were present before the pandemic and impacted nurses’ perceptions of their performance. As leaders look forward to recovery and work redesign efforts, these findings can guide decision-making and resource allocation for optimal nurse, patient, and organization outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9581500/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40571374","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 : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00082-5
Rachel A. Parmelee MSN, RN, CNE, AHN-BC, Carey S. Clark PhD, RN, AHN-BC, FAAN
Background
Across the United States, cannabis regulation is rapidly changing. In 2018, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) released medical marijuana guidelines and called for all nursing students to be educated in six essential principles of knowledge in cannabis care. However, little is known about nursing students’ current knowledge regarding the care of patients using medicinal cannabis.
Purpose
To create a baseline body of evidence around nursing students’ knowledge based on NCSBN’s medical marijuana guidelines and nursing students’ skills and attitudes related to their future roles in providing care to patients who use cannabis medicinally.
Methods
A mixed-method approach through a 16-item survey was used to provide two distinct categories of evidence. Quantitative data collected from 1,346 nursing students across the United States were analyzed using frequency, simple descriptive statistics, and Spearman’s rank correlation to identify variances among states based on sample size and geographic location. A qualitative thematic analysis method described common themes found in the open-ended qualitative portion.
Results
More than 90% of respondents believed cannabis has therapeutic benefits (N = 1,346, M = 1.61, SD = .69), with responses of strongly agree (n = 658; 48.9%), agree (n = 588; 43.7%), neither agree nor disagree (n = 78; 5.8%), disagree (n = 16; 1.2%), and strongly disagree (n = 6; 0.4%). However, 74% of respondents disagreed that their nursing school taught medical cannabis (N = 1,346, M = 4.05, SD = .97), with responses of strongly agree (n = 23; 1.7%), agree (n = 63; 4.7%), neither agree nor disagree (n = 266; 19.8%), disagree (n = 461; 34.2%), and strongly disagree (n = 533; 39.6%). Results were similar in all locations regardless of legality. Qualitative themes emerged indicating students’ desire for cannabis science to be included in the nursing curriculum (n = 525), and those who cared for patients using medical cannabis had positive experiences (n = 277). Most participants reported “media/news” (n = 829), “research articles” (n = 604), and “patients” (n = 383) as their primary sources of medical cannabis education.
Conclusion
Although the nursing students who participated in this study believed cannabis has therapeutic value, few of the students are receiving education from their nursing programs based on NCSBN’s six essential principles of knowledge in the care of patients using cannabis, regardless of students’ location or type of enrolled nursing program. Nursing programs should establish cannabis science and cannabis care within their curricula to meet the patient population’s growing need
{"title":"Nursing Students’ Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes Regarding Medicinal Cannabis Care","authors":"Rachel A. Parmelee MSN, RN, CNE, AHN-BC, Carey S. Clark PhD, RN, AHN-BC, FAAN","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00082-5","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00082-5","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Across the United States, cannabis regulation is rapidly changing. In 2018, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) released medical marijuana guidelines and called for all nursing students to be educated in six essential principles of knowledge in cannabis care. However, little is known about nursing students’ current knowledge regarding the care of patients using medicinal cannabis.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To create a baseline body of evidence around nursing students’ knowledge based on NCSBN’s medical marijuana guidelines and nursing students’ skills and attitudes related to their future roles in providing care to patients who use cannabis medicinally.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A mixed-method approach through a 16-item survey was used to provide two distinct categories of evidence. Quantitative data collected from 1,346 nursing students across the United States were analyzed using frequency, simple descriptive statistics, and Spearman’s rank correlation to identify variances among states based on sample size and geographic location. A qualitative thematic analysis method described common themes found in the open-ended qualitative portion.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>More than 90% of respondents believed cannabis has therapeutic benefits (<em>N</em> = 1,346, <em>M</em> = 1.61, <em>SD</em> = .69), with responses of strongly agree (<em>n</em> = 658; 48.9%), agree (<em>n</em> = 588; 43.7%), neither agree nor disagree (<em>n</em> = 78; 5.8%), disagree (<em>n</em> = 16; 1.2%), and strongly disagree (<em>n</em><span> = 6; 0.4%). However, 74% of respondents disagreed that their nursing school taught medical cannabis (</span><em>N</em> = 1,346, <em>M</em> = 4.05, <em>SD</em> = .97), with responses of strongly agree (<em>n</em> = 23; 1.7%), agree (<em>n</em> = 63; 4.7%), neither agree nor disagree (<em>n</em> = 266; 19.8%), disagree (<em>n</em> = 461; 34.2%), and strongly disagree (<em>n</em> = 533; 39.6%). Results were similar in all locations regardless of legality. Qualitative themes emerged indicating students’ desire for cannabis science to be included in the nursing curriculum (<em>n</em> = 525), and those who cared for patients using medical cannabis had positive experiences (<em>n</em> = 277). Most participants reported “media/news” (<em>n</em> = 829), “research articles” (<em>n</em> = 604), and “patients” (<em>n</em> = 383) as their primary sources of medical cannabis education.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Although the nursing students who participated in this study believed cannabis has therapeutic value, few of the students are receiving education from their nursing programs based on NCSBN’s six essential principles of knowledge in the care of patients using cannabis, regardless of students’ location or type of enrolled nursing program. Nursing programs should establish cannabis science and cannabis care within their curricula to meet the patient population’s growing need","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44066280","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)00081-3
Peter David Mellor RN, DipT (NEd), BEd (NursSt), Grad Dip Ed Admin, MClinEd, PhD, Anita De Bellis RN, BN (Man), MN, PhD, Amanda Muller BA, PhD, Grad Cert PH, Grad Cert Ed, Grad Cert TESOL
Background
Health services offer new graduate registered nurses (NGRNs) employment primarily via specialized transition programs. However, findings continue to indicate that these programs are mostly counterproductive in the provision of a supportive environment. As a consequence, the health of graduates and safety of their patients is often at risk.
Purpose
The specific aim of this integrative review was to review, critique, and synthesize the existing literature with regard to the spectrum of factors and perceptions that have an impact on NGRNs and their passage to becoming competent professional nurses. The overall aim was to reconceptualize the approach to NGRN transition and develop new frameworks or perspectives.
Methods
This study used an integrative review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The CINAHL, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, and Ovid MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published in English in an academic journal between 2015 and 2021. Eligible studies were categorized conceptually in accordance within a recognized framework for integrative reviews.
Results
A total of 41 studies were included in the review. This review found that healthcare organizations are primarily solipsistic and provision of consistent quality support, or any support at all, for NGRNs was not assured. As a consequence, purposive psychosocial preparation of nursing students for self-support during transition is needed.
Conclusion
An intense focus on psychosocial preparation of nursing students in order to scaffold the transition to practice experience and thus ensure patient safety is advocated. Proposals for change are recommended at the undergraduate level, which includes comprehensive curriculum development in both theory and practice.
{"title":"Psychosocial Factors Impacting New Graduate Registered Nurses and Their Passage to Becoming Competent Professional Nurses: An Integrative Review","authors":"Peter David Mellor RN, DipT (NEd), BEd (NursSt), Grad Dip Ed Admin, MClinEd, PhD, Anita De Bellis RN, BN (Man), MN, PhD, Amanda Muller BA, PhD, Grad Cert PH, Grad Cert Ed, Grad Cert TESOL","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00081-3","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00081-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Health services offer new graduate registered nurses (NGRNs) employment primarily via specialized transition programs. However, findings continue to indicate that these programs are mostly counterproductive in the provision of a supportive environment. As a consequence, the health of graduates and safety of their patients is often at risk.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The specific aim of this integrative review was to review, critique, and synthesize the existing literature with regard to the spectrum of factors and perceptions that have an impact on NGRNs and their passage to becoming competent professional nurses. The overall aim was to reconceptualize the approach to NGRN transition and develop new frameworks or perspectives.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>This study used an integrative review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for </span>Systematic Reviews<span> and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The CINAHL, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, and Ovid MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published in English in an academic journal between 2015 and 2021. Eligible studies were categorized conceptually in accordance within a recognized framework for integrative reviews.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 41 studies were included in the review. This review found that healthcare organizations are primarily solipsistic and provision of consistent quality support, or any support at all, for NGRNs was not assured. As a consequence, purposive psychosocial preparation of nursing students for self-support during transition is needed.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>An intense focus on psychosocial preparation of nursing students in order to scaffold the transition to practice experience and thus ensure patient safety is advocated. Proposals for change are recommended at the undergraduate level, which includes comprehensive curriculum development in both theory and practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41974323","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)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":null,"pages":null},"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
Background
Sunset reviews, along with performance audits 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.
Purpose
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.
Methods
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.
Results
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, main areas of performance scrutiny, relates to the major responsibilities and functions of licensing boards. The next most connected group encompasses the administrative and operational concerns involved in the conduct of the review. The least connected group is those elements that delineate the authority and focus 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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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)00065-5
Nicole Livanos JD, MPP
{"title":"No Shortage of Bills to Reverse Workforce Trends","authors":"Nicole Livanos JD, MPP","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00065-5","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00065-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48992846","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}
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