First steps: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) program compared to routine care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse

Background: Evidence from the USA suggests that the home-based Family Nurse Partnership program (FNP), extending from early pregnancy until infants are 24 months, can reduce the risk of child abuse and neglect throughout childhood. FNP is now widely available in the UK. A new variant, Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) offers similar content but in a group context and for a shorter time, until infants are 12 months old. Each group comprises 8 to 12 women with similar expected delivery dates and their partners. Its implementation has been established but there is no evidence of its effectiveness.

Methods/Design: The study comprises a multi-site randomized controlled trial designed to identify the benefits of gFNP compared to standard care. Participants (not eligible for FNP) must be either aged <20 years at their last menstrual period (LMP) with one or more previous live births, or aged 20 to 24 at LMP with low educational qualifications and no previous live births. 'Low educational qualifications' is defined as not having both Maths and English Language GCSE at grade C or higher or, if they have both, no more than four in total at grade C or higher. Exclusions are: under 20 years and previously received home-based FNP and, in either age group, severe psychotic mental illness or not able to communicate in English. Consenting women are randomly allocated (minimized by site and maternal age group) when between 10 and 16 weeks pregnant to either to the 44 session gFNP program or to standard care after the collection of baseline information. Researchers are blind to group assignment. The primary outcomes at 12 months are child abuse potential based on the revised Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory and parent/infant interaction coded using the CARE Index based on a video-taped interaction. Secondary outcomes are maternal depression, parenting stress, health related quality of life, social support, and use of services.

Discussion: This is the first study of the effectiveness of gFNP in the UK. Results should inform decision-making about its delivery alongside universal services, potentially enabling a wider range of families to benefit from the FNP curriculum and approach to supporting parenting.

A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education.

Aim: To determine whether the use of an online or blended learning paradigm has the potential to enhance the teaching of clinical skills in undergraduate nursing.

Background: The need to adequately support and develop students in clinical skills is now arguably more important than previously considered due to reductions in practice opportunities. Online and blended teaching methods are being developed to try and meet this requirement, but knowledge about their effectiveness in teaching clinical skills is limited.

Design: Mixed methods systematic review, which follows the Joanna Briggs Institute User guide version 5.

Data Sources: Computerized searches of five databases were undertaken for the period 1995-August 2013.

Review Methods: Critical appraisal and data extraction were undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute tools for experimental/observational studies and interpretative and critical research. A narrative synthesis was used to report results.

Results: Nineteen published papers were identified. Seventeen papers reported on online approaches and only two papers reported on a blended approach. The synthesis of findings focused on the following four areas: performance/clinical skill, knowledge, self-efficacy/clinical confidence and user experience/satisfaction. The e-learning interventions used varied throughout all the studies.

Conclusion: The available evidence suggests that online learning for teaching clinical skills is no less effective than traditional means. Highlighted by this review is the lack of available evidence on the implementation of a blended learning approach to teaching clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. Further research is required to assess the effectiveness of this teaching methodology.

Advocacy in pain management: the role of the anaesthetic nurse specialist

Peri-operative nursing practice is constantly changing and demanding specialist knowledge, skills and expertise to embrace these changes. All patients in need of anaesthesia are entitled to the same high quality peri-operative care and therefore those assisting the anaesthetist must be competent and effective practitioners. With this in mind the authors shall give a reflective account highlighting the role of Anaesthetic Nurse Specialist (ANS) in promoting leadership within the peri-operative environment and how it can be nurtured and facilitated to achieve professional autonomy and promote patient advocacy.

Anaesthetic nurse specialist role: leading and facilitation in clinical practice

Leadership and its effectiveness is becoming more prevalent within the nursing profession with anaesthetic nurse specialists showing their ability to lead, inspire and motivate others to work towards a shared vision in the rapidly changing peri-anaesthesia environment. Anaesthetic nurse specialists must therefore be aware of their personal leadership skills and continually develop these within clinical practice. They are also well placed regarding the facilitation of learning.

Perceptions of the Nurse Practitioner Role in Facilitating the Implementation of an Onsite Pain Management Team in Long Term Care

Background: One strategy to improve pain management in long term care (LTC) is to optimize the emerging role of the nurse practitioner (NP) in LTC. The purpose of this sub study was to learn about the NP role in implementing an onsite, interdisciplinary Pain Team in the LTC home setting.

Methods: We used a case study design that included two NPs who worked at separate LTC homes. Each of the NPs completed a weekly questionnaire of pain-related activities that they engaged in over a one-year implementation period; and a diary, using critical reflection, about their experiences and strategies used to implement the Pain Team. Descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis were used to analyze the case study data.

Findings: NPs tended to be most engaged in pain assessment and collaborated more with licensed nurses and personal support workers; less with pharmacists. NPs were more involved in organizational level activities, such as participating in committee work or assisting with the development of policies and procedures about pain. NPs created palliative care and pain service protocols; engaged in policy development, in-servicing, quality assurance and advocacy; and encouraged best practices. NPs were challenged with time constraints for pain management and balancing other role priorities and felt that increased scope of practice for them was needed.

Conclusions: The results of this study highlight how NPs implemented a Pain Team in LTC which may be helpful to others interested in implementing a similar strategy to reduce residents’ pain.