Wound management provided by advanced practice nurses: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the review was to map the similarities and differences in the wound care practices of nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and advanced practice registered nurses, globally. INTRODUCTION: Advanced practice nurses have graduate education and advanced scope of practice. Adding advanced wound care training to their skill set provides an opportunity for advanced practice nurses to provide wound care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered for inclusion studies of advanced practice nurses globally who are registered nurses with graduate-level education and advanced training (certification/education) in wound care in any setting. METHODS: The review was conducted using JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. To reflect changes in the advanced practice nursing scope of practice, searches were limited to articles published from 2011 onward. Articles in languages other than English were translated. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts; relevant sources were retrieved in full and screened for eligibility against the inclusion criteria. An additional independent reviewer resolved any disagreements. Data were extracted using a data extraction tool. Extracted data included similarities and differences in wound care practice (type of wound, practice setting, treatments). RESULTS: There were 2504 abstracts screened, and 158 articles were screened at full text. Seven articles were included in this review: 3 sources from the United States, 2 from Australia, and 1 each from Canada and The Netherlands. All 7 sources focused on nurse practitioners. Wound care education varied from certification in wound ostomy to a master's education in wounds. The practice setting varied; there were 2 primary care clinics, 2 community clinics, a wound care center; a suburban hospital, and a study that included tertiary, community, and residential care. Treatments varied, but the sources specific to pressure injuries discussed assessments, cleansing, dressings, topical products, and offloading surfaces/equipment. One source examined the impact of hiring nurse practitioners as wound care consultants. Sources that discussed treatments for various wounds described comprehensive assessments, diagnostic investigations, referrals, wound management, and medications prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: This review outlined the characteristics of advanced practice nurses providing wound care and their practice settings, types of wounds, and treatments provided. Many articles on advanced practice nurses with advanced wound care expertise lack a description of the graduate-level education and/or the specifics regarding wound care certification. This prevents comparison of advanced practice nurses with each other and with other providers regarding the impact that advanced practice nurses have on the health care system in relation to wound care, including cost, access to services, and patient satisfaction.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».