Multidisciplinary team attitudes to an advanced nurse practitioner service in an emergency department
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence and practice    

Multidisciplinary team attitudes to an advanced nurse practitioner service in an emergency department

Lorena Medina Ruiz Advanced clinical practitioner, Emergency department, Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust, Dartford, England

Aim The aim of this study was to examine an emergency department’s (ED) multidisciplinary teams’ (MDTs) attitudes towards an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) service. The ED in question is not the author’s place of work.

Method A Likert-type questionnaire was used to gain a total attitude score (TAS), which was analysed in relation to participants’ gender, age, professional background, level of education and years of experience in the ED, as well as previous and current contact with emergency nurse practitioners and/or ANPs. A total of 115 questionnaires were distributed, and respondents included doctors, nurses, managers, pharmacists, radiographers and a physiotherapist. Participants provided qualitative data to explain their choices, and were asked to describe positive and negative aspects of an ANP service. The data were analysed using a mixed-methods approach.

Findings The TASs were generally positive and there were no statistical differences between the professional groups, although there was some resistance from participants.

Conclusion Overall, the MDT believes the ANP service will improve patient care, waiting times, team divisions and patients’ experiences in the ED if the roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and communicated. In addition, the service should receive enough funding to ensure its sustainability and appropriate supervision by a senior doctor should be made available.

Emergency Nurse. doi: 10.7748/en.2018.e1793

Citation

Medina Ruiz L (2018) Multidisciplinary team attitudes to an advanced nurse practitioner service in an emergency department. Emergency Nurse. doi: 10.7748/en.2018.e1793

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software

Correspondence

lorena.medina@nhs.net

Conflict of interest

None declared

Published online: 02 October 2018

Want to read more?

RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

or

3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more