Nurse practitioner led telehealth services: A scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: To explore the educational preparation of nurse practitioners to deliver telehealth services and their impact on access to care. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: A search was undertaken 4 April 2022. Primary studies that focused on nurse practitioners and their patients/clients engaging in telehealth services in any healthcare setting or clinical area within Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and Ireland, published between 2010 to 2022, were included. Study findings were analysed using the Levesque et al. (2013) access to care framework and the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for Practice and Research Recommendations framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2021). The PRISMA-ScR checklist was used to guide reporting. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, and Embase databases. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were included. Studies (n = 28) relating to access to care focused on appropriateness/ability to engage (n = 14), affordability/ability to pay (n = 1), and availability/ability to reach (n = 13). High levels of telehealth satisfaction were reported, including reduced travel time and costs, and appointment flexibility. Telehealth satisfaction was reduced when a perceived need for physical assessment, or privacy concerns were present. Service providers reported decreased emergency presentations, fewer missed appointments and improved consumer engagement. Fourteen studies related to nurse practitioner education, using a range of approaches such as didactic education modules, simulations and clinical experiences, all published within the past 3 years. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that nurse practitioner-led telehealth has improved access to care. High levels of satisfaction indicate patients accept nurse practitioner-led telehealth. Impacts to healthcare service use and patient engagement further support the viability of nurse practitioner-led telehealth. The recent increase in telehealth education studies reflects the rapid uptake of telehealth care in the mainstream. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Patients perceive telehealth as acceptable and appropriate to meet their healthcare needs and improve access to care. Telehealth is likely to be a mainstay in ongoing healthcare delivery, therefore, nurse practitioners must have educational preparation to provide telehealth. IMPACT: This scoping review provides insight into the ways nurse practitioners deliver telehealth services, how they are educated to provide telehealth services, and their impact on access to care. Nurse practitioner-led telehealth improves access to care across service provision and consumer perspective domains. Nurse practitioner telehealth education is an emerging topic. This research is valuable for nurse practitioners using telehealth, nurse practitioner educators and telehealth policy decision makers. REPORTING METHOD: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,080 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,022 | 0,026 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».