Evaluating nurse consultants’ work through key informant perceptions
Intended for healthcare professionals
Art & Science Previous     Next

Evaluating nurse consultants’ work through key informant perceptions

Sabi Redwood Senior lecturer, Bournemouth University;
Hilary Lloyd Principal lecturer, Nursing practice development and research, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland;
Eloise Carr Reader, Bournemouth University;
Helen Hancock Research fellow, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne;
Robert McSherry Principal lecturer practice development, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough;
Steve Campbell Principal lecturer practice development, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough;
Iain Graham Chair in nursing development, Bournemouth University, Dorset

Aim To evaluate the work of nurse consultants in the NHS by exploring the views of key informants and nurse consultants.

Method A multi-site evaluative study commissioned by and undertaken in four trusts. The evaluation was based on the 360 degree feedback process and used case study methodology, inviting key informants to provide information on their work with nurse consultants.

Findings The findings are discussed in relation to the following themes: role aspirations and lived reality; challenging boundaries; impact and outcomes and leadership. The findings concur with previous studies demonstrating a series of common themes associated with leadership, clinical expertise, research and educational activity. These findings express the ways in which nurse consultants are working to develop unique services to meet patient needs.

Conclusion The nurse consultant has an important role in the modernisation of the NHS. The role’s impact, in terms of the informants, is in leadership, clinical expertise, research and educational activity. The findings reveal an urgent need to support consultant nurses in developing their leadership potential and skills in researching practice.

Nursing Standard. 21, 17, 35-40. doi: 10.7748/ns2007.01.21.17.35.c6394

Correspondence

sredwood@bournemouth.ac.uk

Peer review

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

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