Nurse practitioner led telehealth services: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".