Jessica Castner1,2, Lenore Boris3. 1. School of Nursing, University at Buffalo-The State University of New York. 2. Castner Incorporated, Grand Island, New York, United States. 3. College of Medicine, Upstate Medical University.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: State regulations may impede the use of nurse-initiated protocols to begin life-saving treatments when patients arrive to the emergency department. In crowding and small-scale disaster events, this could translate to life and death practice differences. Nevertheless, research demonstrates nurses do utilize nurse-initiated protocols despite legal prohibitions. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of the state regulatory environment as expressed in nurse practice acts and interpretive statements prohibiting the use of nurse-initiated protocols with hospital use of nurse-initiated protocols in emergency departments. METHODS: A cross-sectional approach was used with a nationwide survey. The independent variable categorized the location of the hospital in states that have a protocol prohibition. Outcomes included protocols for blood laboratory tests, X-rays, over-the-counter medication, and electrocardiograms. A second analysis was completed with New York State alone because this state has the strongest language prohibiting nurse-initiated protocols. RESULTS: A total of 350 participants returned surveys from 48 states and the District of Columbia. A hospital was more likely to have policies supporting nurse-initiated protocols if they were not in a state with the scope of practice prohibitions. Four categories emerged such as advantages, approval, prohibition, and conditions under which the protocols can be used. Prohibitive language was associated with less protocol use for emergency care. CONCLUSION: State scope of practice inconsistencies create misalignment with emergency nurse education and training, which may impede timely care and contribute to inequalities and inefficiencies in emergency care. In addition, prohibitive language places practicing nurses responding to emergencies in crowded work environments at risk.
INTRODUCTION: State regulations may impede the use of nurse-initiated protocols to begin life-saving treatments when patients arrive to the emergency department. In crowding and small-scale disaster events, this could translate to life and death practice differences. Nevertheless, research demonstrates nurses do utilize nurse-initiated protocols despite legal prohibitions. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of the state regulatory environment as expressed in nurse practice acts and interpretive statements prohibiting the use of nurse-initiated protocols with hospital use of nurse-initiated protocols in emergency departments. METHODS: A cross-sectional approach was used with a nationwide survey. The independent variable categorized the location of the hospital in states that have a protocol prohibition. Outcomes included protocols for blood laboratory tests, X-rays, over-the-counter medication, and electrocardiograms. A second analysis was completed with New York State alone because this state has the strongest language prohibiting nurse-initiated protocols. RESULTS: A total of 350 participants returned surveys from 48 states and the District of Columbia. A hospital was more likely to have policies supporting nurse-initiated protocols if they were not in a state with the scope of practice prohibitions. Four categories emerged such as advantages, approval, prohibition, and conditions under which the protocols can be used. Prohibitive language was associated with less protocol use for emergency care. CONCLUSION: State scope of practice inconsistencies create misalignment with emergency nurse education and training, which may impede timely care and contribute to inequalities and inefficiencies in emergency care. In addition, prohibitive language places practicing nurses responding to emergencies in crowded work environments at risk.
Entities:
Keywords:
emergency department; emergency nursing; nurse practice act; protocol; scope of practice