Regulating During Crisis: A Qualitative Comparative Case Study of Nursing Regulatory Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic placed intense pressure on nursing regulatory bodies to ensure an adequate healthcare workforce while maintaining public safety. Purpose: Our objectives were to analyze regulatory bodies' responses during the pandemic, examine how nursing regulators conceptualize the public interest during a public health crisis, and explore the influence of a public health crisis on the balancing of regulatory principles. We aimed to develop a clearer understanding of regulating during a crisis by identifying themes within regulatory responses. Methods: We conducted a qualitative comparative case study examining the pandemic responses of eight nursing regulators in three Canadian provinces and three U.S. states. Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with 19 representatives of nursing regulatory bodies and 206 publicly available documents and analyzed thematically. Results: Five themes were constructed from the data: (1) risk-based responses to reduce regulatory burden; (2) agility and flexibility in regulatory pandemic responses; (3) working with stakeholders for a systems-based approach; (4) valuing consistency in regulatory approaches across jurisdictions; and (5) the pandemic as a catalyst for innovation. Specifically, we identified that the meaning of "public interest" in the context of high workforce demand was a key consideration for regulators. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the intensity of effort involved in nursing regulatory responses and the significant contribution of nursing regulation to the healthcare system's pandemic response. Our results also indicate a shift in thinking around broader public interest issues, beyond the conduct and competence of individual nurses, to include pressing societal issues. Regulators are beginning to grapple with these longer-term issues and policy tensions.

Protecting the public interest while regulating health professionals providing virtual care: A scoping review.

Technology is transforming service delivery in many health professions, particularly with the rapid shift to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health profession regulators must navigate legal and ethical complexities to facilitate virtual care while upholding their mandate to protect the public interest. The objectives of this scoping review were to examine how the public interest is protected when regulating health professionals who provide virtual care, discuss policy and practice implications of virtual care, and make recommendations for future research. We searched six multidisciplinary databases for academic literature published in English between January 2015 and May 2021. We also searched specific databases and websites for relevant grey literature. After screening, 59 academic articles and 18 grey literature sources were included for analysis. We identified five key findings: the public interest when regulating health professionals providing virtual care was only implicitly considered in most of the literature; when the public interest was discussed, the dimension of access was emphasized; criticism in the literature focused on social ideologies driving regulation that may inhibit more widespread use of virtual care; subnational licensure was viewed as a barrier; and the demand for virtual care during COVID-19 catalyzed licensure and scope of practice changes. Overall, virtual care introduces new areas of risk, potential harm, and inequity that health profession regulators need to address as technology continues to evolve. Regulators have an essential role in providing clear standards and guidelines around virtual care, including what is required for competent practice. There are indications that the public interest concept is evolving in relation to virtual care as regulators continue to balance public safety, equitable access to services, and economic competitiveness.

Protecting the public interest when regulating health professionals providing virtual care: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Virtual care is transforming the nature of healthcare, particularly with the accelerated shift to telehealth and virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health profession regulators face intense pressures to safely facilitate this type of healthcare while upholding their legislative mandate to protect the public. Challenges for health profession regulators have included providing practice guidance for virtual care, changing entry-to-practice requirements to include digital competencies, facilitating interjurisdictional virtual care through licensure and liability insurance requirements, and adapting disciplinary procedures. This scoping review will examine the literature on how the public interest is protected when regulating health professionals providing virtual care. METHODS: This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. Academic and grey literature will be retrieved from health sciences, social sciences, and legal databases using a comprehensive search strategy underpinned by Population-Concept-Context (PCC) inclusion criteria. Articles published in English since January 2015 will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and full-text sources against specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. One research team member will extract relevant data from the selected documents and a second will validate the extractions. DISCUSSION: Results will be presented in a descriptive synthesis that highlights implications for regulatory policy and professional practice, as well as study limitations and knowledge gaps that warrant further research. Given the rapid expansion of virtual care provision by regulated health professionals in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, mapping the literature on how the public interest is protected in this rapidly evolving digital health sector may help inform future regulatory reform and innovation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BD2ZX ).

Regulating in the public interest: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article has three aims. First, to reflect on how conceptualizations of the public interest may have shifted due to COVID-19. Second, to focus on the implications of regulatory responses for the health workforce and corresponding lessons as health leaders and systems transition from pandemic response to pandemic recovery. Third, to identify how these lessons lead to potential directions for future research, connecting regulation in a whole-of-systems approach to health system safety and health workforce capacity and sustainability. Pandemic regulatory responses highlighted both strengths and limitations of regulatory structures and frameworks. The COVID-19 pandemic may have introduced new considerations around regulating in the public interest, particularly as the impact of regulatory responses on the health workforce continues to be examined. Clearly articulating practitioner practice parameters, reducing barriers to practice, and working collaboratively with stakeholders were primary aspects of regulators' pandemic responses that impacted the health workforce.