4.5 Article

The role of advanced nursing in lung cancer: A framework based development

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 740-746

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2015.05.009

Keywords

Lung cancer nurse; Advanced practice nursing; Lung neoplasm; Supportive care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Advanced Practice Lung Cancer Nurses (APLCN) are well-established in several countries but their role has yet to be established in Switzerland. Developing an innovative nursing role requires a structured approach to guide successful implementation and to meet the overarching goal of improved nursing sensitive patient outcomes. The Participatory, Evidence-based, Patient-focused process, for guiding the development, implementation, and evaluation of advanced practice nursing (PEPPA framework) is one approach that was developed in the context of the Canadian health system. The purpose of this article is to describe the development of an APLCN model at a Swiss Academic Medical Center as part of a specialized Thoracic Cancer Center and to evaluate the applicability of PEPPA framework in this process. Method: In order to develop and implement the APLCN role, we applied the first seven phases of the PEPPA framework. Results: This article spreads the applicability of the PEPPA framework for an APLCN development. This framework allowed us to i) identify key components of an APLCN model responsive to lung cancer patients' health needs, ii) identify role facilitators and barriers, iii) implement the APLCN role and iv) design a feasibility study of this new role. Conclusions: The PEPPA framework provides a structured process for implementing novel Advanced Practice Nursing roles in a local context, particularly where such roles are in their infancy. Two key points in the process include assessing patients' health needs and involving key stakeholders. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available