The Acute Care Nurse Practitioner: challenging existing boundaries of emergency nurses in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study explored the opinions of nurses and doctors working in emergency departments towards the development of the Acute Care Nurse Practitioner service in the United Kingdom. BACKGROUND: Studies carried out in the United States and Canada suggest that the Acute Care Nurse Practitioner can have a positive impact on the critically ill or injured patients' experiences in the emergency department. This role is well developed in the United States and Canada, but is still in its infancy in the United Kingdom. DESIGN AND METHODS: A descriptive, exploratory design incorporating questionnaires (n = 98) and semi-structured interviews (n = 6) was employed. The sample included nurses and doctors from seven emergency departments and minor injury units. RESULTS: Respondents felt it was important for the Acute Care Nurse Practitioner to have obtained a specialist nurse practitioner qualification and that the Acute Care Nurse Practitioner should retain a clinical remit. While participants seemed comfortable with nurses undertaking traditional advanced skills such as suturing, reluctance was displayed with other advanced skills such as needle thoracocentesis. Three main themes were identified from the interviews: inter-professional conflict, autonomy and the need for the Acute Care Nurse Practitioner. DISCUSSIONS: Doctors were reluctant to allow nurses to practise certain additional advanced skills and difficulties appear to be centred on the autonomy and other associated inter-professional conflicts with the role of the Acute Care Nurse Practitioner. CONCLUSION: Nurses and doctors identified a need for the Acute Care Nurse Practitioner, but the blurring of boundaries between doctors and nurses can result in inter-professional conflict unless this is addressed prior to the introduction of such advanced practitioners. Relevance to clinical practice. As the role of the emergency nurse diversifies and expands, this study re-affirms the importance of inter-professional collaboration when seeking approval for role expansions in nursing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".