Wound management provided by advanced practice nurses: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".