4.5 Article

Exploring the Competencies of Japanese Expert Nurse Practitioners: A Thematic Analysis

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9121674

关键词

nurse practitioner; Japanese context; competency; quality of life; clinical contexts

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Japanese expert NPs can effectively work in clinical settings by collaborating flexibly and humbly with other medical professionals and proposing practical solutions to problems. Their competencies include working in physicians' contexts, interprofessional collaboration, involvement in nurses' work, contribution to healthcare, and possessing personal qualities for effective working.
Nurse practitioners (NPs) provide medical care equivalent to that of physicians and facilitate access to healthcare. Although Japan's first NP graduated in 2010, how Japanese expert NPs work effectively in clinical contexts is yet to be investigated. We aimed to identify the competencies that make expert NPs in Japan effective. Twelve Japanese expert NPs were purposely selected. The average age of the participants was 44.8 years, average NP experience was 7.5 years, and eight participants were women. Semi-structured interviews were conducted online from March to May 2021. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis revealed five themes: working in physicians' contexts, interprofessional collaboration, involvement in nurses' work, contribution to healthcare, and personal qualities for effective working. Japanese expert NPs can function effectively in clinical settings by flexibly and humbly collaborating with other medical professionals who have autonomous positions. They can improve the quality of healthcare by proposing practical solutions to problems faced by patients and medical organizations. These explored competencies can be applied to other aging and more complex societal contexts, and in updating the required competencies of Japanese NPs.

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