4.5 Article

A qualitative study exploring nursing home care environments where nurse practitioners work

期刊

GERIATRIC NURSING
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 44-51

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2022.12.020

关键词

Nursing home; Nurse practitioners

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research is needed to support the nurse practitioner workforce in nursing homes to ensure higher quality care for older adults. Nursing homes with optimal care environments that support nurse practitioner roles and relationships are better equipped to provide care for older adults. This study conducted qualitative interviews with nurse practitioners and identified three major themes impacting care environments: nurse practitioner practice, overall practice goals, and workplace challenges. The findings highlight the importance of nurse practitioner and physician relationships in nursing home care.
Research is needed to support the growing nurse practitioner workforce to assure higher quality care for older adults in nursing homes. Nursing homes with optimal care environments that support nurse practi-tioner roles, increased visibility, independence, and relationships are better positioned to support care of older adults. This study reports findings of thirteen qualitative interviews with nurse practitioners to explore facets of nursing home care environments and adapt a tool to measure care environments. Our team incorpo-rated deductive and inductive coding to identify three major emerging themes impacting care environments: 1) nurse practitioner practice in nursing homes, 2) overall goals of practice, 3) workplace challenges. Themes were derived from seven overarching categories and 33 codes describing aspects of NH care environment important to nurse practitioners. Some of the most highly important survey items measured nurse practi-tioner and physician relationships. Less important items measured relationships between nurse practitioners and administration. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据