3.8 Article

A 12-month evaluation of the impact of Transitional Emergency Nurse Practitioners in one metropolitan Emergency Department

Journal

AUSTRALASIAN EMERGENCY NURSING JOURNAL
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 4-8

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aenj.2010.10.001

Keywords

Nurse Practitioner; Emergency nurse practitioner; Advanced practice nursing; Independent practitioner

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To meet increasing work demand, the NSW government funded Transitional Emergency Nurse Practitioner (TENP) roles which would work within a Nurse Practitioner (NP) framework. The role provided opportunity for experienced nurses to, develop advanced practice skills, manage a range of patient conditions and injuries. Therefore, the aims of this study were to: (i) describe patient demographics and conditions managed within the TENP model; (ii) examine the efficiency and safety of TENP management; and (iii) evaluate the impact of the TENP role on the delivery of emergency services. Design: A 12-month prospective observational study was conducted to evaluate the implementation of a TENP model. Setting: A 550 bed University Referral Hospital St George Hospital providing around 50,000 admissions and 770,000 outpatient treatments annually to a catchment population of 250,000. Subjects: Patients presenting with minor injuries and illnesses to one metropolitan emergency department (ED). The majority of patients seen were in triage categories 3, 4 and 5. Results: Ten percent (n = 5249) of ED patients were managed by TENPs. For the TENP patients the mean time to be seen was 38 min. Within the model for the See & Treat'' patient group the mean time to be seen was 53 min ( median 38 min). For the collaborative'' group the mean time was 47 min (median 24 min). Length of stay (LOS) for individual diagnostic groups identified TENP patients had a shorter or equal LOS to medical staff patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available