The Effect of Supervision Waivers on Practice: A Survey of Massachusetts Nurse Practitioners During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: While optimal utilization of the nurse practitioner (NP) workforce is an increasingly popular proposal to alleviate the growing primary care shortage, federal, state, and organizational scope of practice policies inhibit NPs from practicing to the full extent of their license and training. In March of 2020, NP state-specific supervisory requirements were temporarily waived to meet the demands of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Massachusetts. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the impact of temporarily waived state practice restrictions on NP perception of care delivery during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts. RESEARCH DESIGN: Mixed methods descriptive analysis of a web-based survey of Massachusetts NPs (N=391), conducted in May and June 2020. RESULTS: The vast majority (75%) of NPs believed the temporary removal of practice restriction did not perceptibly improve clinical work. Psychiatric mental health NPs were significantly more likely than other NP specialties to believe the waiver improved clinical work (odds ratio=6.68, P=0.001). NPs that experienced an increase in working hours during the pandemic surge were also more likely to report a positive effect of the waiver (odds ratio=2.56, P=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Temporary removal of state-level practice barriers alone is not sufficient to achieve immediate full scope of practice for NPs. The successful implementation of modernized scope of practice laws may require a collective effort to revise organizational and payer policies accordingly.

COVID 19: An unprecedented opportunity for nurse practitioners to reform healthcare and advocate for permanent full practice authority.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic ushered in a new era for advanced practice registered nurses, as emergency regulatory and policy changes expanded the nurse practitioner (NP) scope of practice. The legislative changes enabled NPs to bolster the national pandemic response by working to the full extent of their education and training. The changes are only temporary, and many have contemplated the permanent impact of COVID-19 when healthcare transitions to a postpandemic normal. NPs now have a unique opportunity to educate others about the merit of their role and advocate for permanent legislative changes. In this creative controversy manuscript, we build a case that national NP full practice authority increases access to care and is vital for a sustainable and resilient healthcare system that can react to future pandemic crises.

Seventeen states enacted executive orders expanding advanced practice nurses' scopes of practice during the first 21 days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONTEXT: Rural hospitals in the USA are often served by advanced practice nurses, due to the difficulty for such facilities to recruit physicians. In order to facilitate a full range of services for patients, some states permit advanced practice nurses to practice with full independence. However, many states limit their scopes of practice, resulting in the potential for limited healthcare access in underserved areas. The COVID-19 pandemic temporarily upended these arrangements for several states, as 17 governors quickly passed waivers and suspensions of physician oversight restrictions. ISSUES: Physician resistance is a primary hurdle for states that limit advanced practice nurse scopes of practice. Longstanding restrictions were removed, however, in a short period of time. The pandemic demonstrated that even governors with strong political disagreements agreed on one way that healthcare access could potentially be improved. LESSONS LEARNED: Despite longstanding concerns over patient safety when advanced practice nurses practice with full autonomy, governors quickly removed practice restrictions when faced with a crisis situation. Implied in such behavior are that policymakers were aware of advanced practice nurses' capabilities prior to the pandemic, but chose not to implement full practice authority, and that governors appeared to disagree as to whether to temporarily waive specific restrictions or suspend restrictions entirely, consistent with their political affiliation. We propose more research into understanding whether or not such changes should become permanent.

33rd Annual APRN Legislative Update: Unprecedented changes to APRN practice authority in unprecedented times.

ABSTRACT: In a year unlike any other in recent history, healthcare workers, including advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), faced challenges and triumphs as the frontline in the battle against COVID-19. This 33rd Annual Legislative Update covers the scope of practice changes and legislative decisions that most impacted APRNs across the US in 2020.

The Pursuit of Nurse Practitioner Practice Legislation: A Case Study.

Across the United States, nursing practice acts (NPAs) have been revised to include provisions that promote full practice authority (FPA) for nurse practitioners (NPs). Such revisions provide a mechanism to better utilize the full scope of NP services to address growing demands for access to health care. Modernized NPAs that facilitate FPA for NPs are imperative, especially now with the unprecedented health care crisis that the world now faces: Coronavirus Disease 2019. This is the first known study to use an embedded single-case study design, guided by the Kingdon policy stream model, to provide a detailed account of how stakeholders for NP FPA determine the appropriate time to pursue legislative changes to NP scope of practice regulations. Qualitative data analysis revealed four themes which comprised the components considered by stakeholders during their decision-making processes related to NP FPA: participants, problem, policy development, and politics. Themes were further collapsed within concepts from the Kingdon model to form the case description. Study findings can be used to increase the competency among NP FPA stakeholders in determining the timing of legislative pursuits for regulatory change.