M E Redshaw1, M E Harvey. 1. Department of Psychology, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. margaret.redshaw@uwe.ac.uk
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to investigate the views of UK clinicians in neonatal care who were working with nurses trained as neonatal nurse practitioners (NNPs). A questionnaire survey was used with a total sample of senior clinicians in the 66 neonatal units with one or more qualified NNPs. The main outcome measures were type and frequency of response, and similar data from NNPs were used to make comparisons. Data were returned from 57 of the 66 clinicians contacted (86%). NNP clinical practice as perceived by them was largely similar to that recorded by NNPs, though the clinicians expected more NNP involvement in some procedures (inserting central venous lines, umbilical arterial catheters, chest drains and peripheral arterial cannulae) than was actually found. Perceptions of the NNP role were similar, though the clinicians were significantly less likely to see taking a case-load, conducting a ward round, accepting outside referrals and taking charge of emergency transfers as integral elements. Reflections on the utilization of NNPs in neonatal care and the impact on junior medical staff education referred to NNPs filling gaps, a reduction in the intensity of work, improvements in training and in the quality of care. CONCLUSION: The introduction of NNPs is seen positively from the perspective of clinicians working alongside them in neonatal care. The development of similar models of care in countries where the introduction of NNPs is being considered is likely to be similarly supported.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to investigate the views of UK clinicians in neonatal care who were working with nurses trained as neonatal nurse practitioners (NNPs). A questionnaire survey was used with a total sample of senior clinicians in the 66 neonatal units with one or more qualified NNPs. The main outcome measures were type and frequency of response, and similar data from NNPs were used to make comparisons. Data were returned from 57 of the 66 clinicians contacted (86%). NNP clinical practice as perceived by them was largely similar to that recorded by NNPs, though the clinicians expected more NNP involvement in some procedures (inserting central venous lines, umbilical arterial catheters, chest drains and peripheral arterial cannulae) than was actually found. Perceptions of the NNP role were similar, though the clinicians were significantly less likely to see taking a case-load, conducting a ward round, accepting outside referrals and taking charge of emergency transfers as integral elements. Reflections on the utilization of NNPs in neonatal care and the impact on junior medical staff education referred to NNPs filling gaps, a reduction in the intensity of work, improvements in training and in the quality of care. CONCLUSION: The introduction of NNPs is seen positively from the perspective of clinicians working alongside them in neonatal care. The development of similar models of care in countries where the introduction of NNPs is being considered is likely to be similarly supported.