Establishing a nurse practitioner collaborative: evolution, development, and outcomes

The first Australian palliative care nurse practitioner (NP) was endorsed in 2003. In 2009 the Victoria Department of Health funded the development of the Victorian Palliative Care Nurse Practitioner Collaborative (VPCNPC). Its aim was to promote the NP role, develop resources, and provide education and mentorship to NPs, nurse practitioner candidates (NPCs), and health service managers. Four key objectives were developed: identify the demographic profile of palliative care NPCs in Victoria; develop an education curriculum and practical resources to support the training and education of palliative care NPCs and NPs; provide mentorship to NPs, NPCs, and service managers; and ensure effective communication with all key stakeholders. An NPC survey was also conducted to explore NPC demographics, models of care, the hours of study required for the role, the mentoring process, and education needs. This paper reports on the establishment of the VPCNPC, the steps taken to achieve its objectives, and the results of the survey. The NP role in palliative care in Australia continues to evolve, and the VPCNPC provides a structure and resources to clearly articulate the benefits of the role to nursing and clinical services. The advanced clinical practice role of the nurse practitioner (NP) has been well established in North America for several decades and across a range of specialties (Ryan-Woolley et al, 2007; Poghosyan et al, 2012). The NP role in Australia and the UK is a relatively new initiative that commenced in the early 2000s (Gardner et al, 2009). There are over 1000 NPs across all states and territories of Australia, of whom approximately 130 work in the state of Victoria (Victorian Government Health Information, 2012). Australian NPs work across a range of specialties, including palliative, emergency, older person, renal, cardiac, respiratory, and mental health care. There has been increasing focus nationally and internationally on developing academic programmes specifically for nurses working toward NP status (Gardner et al, 2006). There has been less emphasis on identifying the comprehensive clinical support requirements for NPs and NP candidates (NPCs) to ensure they meet all registration requirements to achieve and/or maintain endorsement, or on articulating the ongoing requirements for NPs once endorsed. Historically in Australia there has been a lack of clarity and limited published evidence on the benefits of the NP role for patients, carers, and health services (Quaglietti et al, 2004; Gardner and Gardner, 2005; Bookbinder et al, 2011; Dyar et al, 2012). An NP is considered to be at the apex of clinical nursing practice. The NP role typically entails comprehensively assessing and managing patients, prescribing medicines, making direct referrals to other specialists and services, and ordering diagnostic investigations (Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2009). All NPs in Australia are required to meet the following generic criteria: be a registered nurse, have completed a Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia approved postgraduate university Master's (nurse practitioner) degree programme, and be able to demonstrate a minimum of 3 years' experience in an advanced practice role (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, 2011). An NPC in Victoria is a registered nurse employed by a service or organisation to work toward meeting the academic and clinical requirements for national endorsement as an NP. During the period of candidacy, which is of variable duration, NPCs consolidate their competence to work at the advanced practice level of an NP. The candidacy period is a process of learning the new role while engaging with mentors (medical and nursing) and accessing other learning opportunities both within and outside one's organisation to meet the educational requirements. Integral to the NP role is the development of a model of care that is responsive to identified service delivery gaps that can be addressed by the skills, knowledge, and expertise of an NP. These are unique to each individual service. The practice of an Australian NP is guided by national standards (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia 2014). It is defined by four overarching standards: clinical, education, research, and leadership. Following the initial endorsement of four Victorian palliative care NPs in 2005, there was a lull in recruitment. The Victoria Department of Health (DH) recognised the potential benefits of NPs for health services, and in 2008 it provided funding for Victorian public health services to scope palliative care NP models of care that could enhance service delivery and patient outcomes. The scoping strategy was effective and led to the appointment of 16 palliative care nurses to NPC positions over the ensuing 3 years. The NPCs work across a broad range of care settings, including inpatient, community, and outpatient in metropolitan, regional, and rural areas of Victoria. At the same time, the DH also funded the Centre for Palliative Care to establish the Victorian Palliative Care Nurse Practitioner Collaborative (VPCNPC) to support the NPs and NPCs. The Centre is a state-wide service that is part of St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne and a collaborative Centre of the University of Melbourne. Its primary function is to provide training and conduct research in palliative care. The purpose of the VPCNPC was to provide support and mentorship and develop resources targeted at palliative care NPs, NPCs, and health service managers. Membership of the VPCNPC is open to all NPs, NPCs, health service managers, and nurses interested in the NP role. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of the VPCNPC, its actions, and the outcomes of these actions.

Exercise rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge for recovery from critical illness

Background: Skeletal muscle wasting and weakness are significant complications of critical illness, associated with the degree of illness severity and periods of reduced mobility during mechanical ventilation. They contribute to the profound physical and functional deficits observed in survivors. These impairments may persist for many years following discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) and may markedly influence health-related quality of life. Rehabilitation is a key strategy in the recovery of patients following critical illness. Exercise based interventions are aimed at targeting this muscle wasting and weakness. Physical rehabilitation delivered during ICU admission has been systematically evaluated and shown to be beneficial. However its effectiveness when initiated after ICU discharge has yet to be established. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of exercise rehabilitation programmes, initiated after ICU discharge, on functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in adult ICU survivors who have been mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours. Search methods:We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), OvidSP MEDLINE, Ovid SP EMBASE, and CINAHL via EBSCO host to 15th May 2014. We used a specific search strategy for each database. This included synonyms for ICU and critical illness, exercise training and rehabilitation. We searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted primary authors to obtain further information regarding potentially eligible studies. We also searched major clinical trials registries (Clinical Trials and Current Controlled Trials) and the personal libraries of the review authors. We applied no language or publication restriction. We reran the search in February 2015. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.  Selection criteria:We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared an exercise interventioninitiated after ICU discharge to any other intervention or a control or ‘usual care’ programme in adult (≥18years) survivors ofcritical illness. Data collection and analysis:We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Main results:We included six trials (483 adult ICU participants). Exercise-based interventions were delivered on the ward in two studies; both onthe ward and in the community in one study; and in the community in three studies. The duration of the intervention varied according to the length of stay in hospital following ICU discharge (up to a fixed duration of 12 weeks).Risk of bias was variable for all domains across all trials. High risk of bias was evident in all studies for performance bias, although blinding of participants and personnel in therapeutic rehabilitation trials can be pragmatically challenging. Low risk of bias was at least 50% for all other domains across all trials, although high risk of bias was present in one study for random sequence generation (selection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) and other sources. Risk of bias was unclear for remaining studies across the domains.All six studies measured effect on the primary outcome of functional exercise capacity, although there was wide variability in natureof intervention, outcome measures and associated metrics, and data reporting. Overall quality of the evidence was very low. Only two studies using the same outcome measure for functional exercise capacity, had the potential for pooling of data and assessment of heterogeneity. On statistical advice, this was considered inappropriate to perform this analysis and study findings were therefore qualitatively described. Individually, three studies reported positive results in favour of the intervention. A small benefit (versus. control)was evident in anaerobic threshold in one study (mean difference, MD (95% confidence interval, CI), 1.8 mlO2/kg/min (0.4 to 3.2),P value = 0.02), although this effect was short-term, and in a second study, both incremental (MD 4.7 (95% CI 1.69 to 7.75) Watts, P value = 0.003) and endurance (MD 4.12 (95% CI 0.68 to 7.56) minutes, P value = 0.021) exercise testing demonstrated improvement.Finally self-reported physical function increased significantly following a rehabilitation manual (P value = 0.006). Remaining studies found no effect of the intervention.Similar variability in with regard findings for the primary outcome of health-related quality of life were also evident. Only two studies evaluated this outcome. Following statistical advice, these data again were considered inappropriate for pooling to determine overall effect and assessment of heterogeneity. Qualitative description of findings was therefore undertaken. Individually, neither study reported differences between intervention and control groups for health-related quality of life as a result of the intervention. Overall quality of the evidence was very low.Mortality was reported by all studies, ranging from 0% to 18.8%. Only one non-mortality adverse event was reported across all patients in all studies (a minor musculoskeletal injury). Withdrawals, reported in four studies, ranged from 0% to 26.5% in control groups,and 8.2% to 27.6% in intervention groups. Loss to follow-up, reported in all studies, ranged from 0% to 14% in control groups, and 0% to 12.5% in intervention groups. Authors’ conclusions:We are unable, at this time, to determine an overall effect on functional exercise capacity, or health-related quality of life, of an exercise based intervention initiated after ICU discharge in survivors of critical illness. Meta-analysis of findings was not appropriate. This was due to insufficient study number and data. Individual study findings were inconsistent. Some studies reported a beneficial effect of the intervention on functional exercise capacity, and others not. No effect was reported on health-related quality of life. Methodological rigour was lacking across a number of domains influencing quality of the evidence. There was also wide variability in the characteristics of interventions, outcome measures and associated metrics, and data reporting.If further trials are identified, we may be able to determine the effect of exercise-based interventions following ICU discharge, on functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in survivors of critical illness.

A review of behaviour change theories and techniques used in group based self-management programmes for chronic low back pain and arthritis

Background: Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines recommend applying theory within complex interventions to explain how behaviour change occurs. Guidelines endorse self-management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) and osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence for its effectiveness is weak. Objective: This literature review aimed to determine the use of behaviour change theory and techniques within randomised controlled trials of group-based self-management programmes for chronic musculoskeletal pain, specifically CLBP and OA. Methods: A two-phase search strategy of electronic databases was used to identify systematic reviews and studies relevant to this area. Articles were coded for their use of behaviour change theory, and the number of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) was identified using a 93-item taxonomy, Taxonomy (v1). Results: 25 articles of 22 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which only three reported having based their intervention on theory, and all used Social Cognitive Theory. A total of 33 BCTs were coded across all articles with the most commonly identified techniques being '. instruction on how to perform the behaviour', '. demonstration of the behaviour', '. behavioural practice', '. credible source', '. graded tasks' and '. body changes'. Conclusion: Results demonstrate that theoretically driven research within group based self-management programmes for chronic musculoskeletal pain is lacking, or is poorly reported. Future research that follows recommended guidelines regarding the use of theory in study design and reporting is warranted.