ABSTRACT
AIMS: Clinical guidelines recommend people with heart failure are managed within a multidisciplinary team to receive optimal evidence-based management of the syndrome. There is increasing evidence that Nurse Practitioners (NP) in heart failure demonstrate positive patient outcomes. However, their roles as key stakeholders in a multidisciplinary heart failure team are not clearly defined. The aim of the review was to explore the literature related to NP-sensitive outcomes in heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A scoping review was conducted according to accepted guidelines using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework for conducting a scoping review, to identify the literature that related to NP-sensitive outcomes in heart failure management. Sixteen texts were selected for data extraction and analysis. The most common outcome measures reported were readmission rates, self-care measurement scales, functional status scores, quality of life measurements, and medication optimization outcomes. No two studies collected or reported on the same outcome measurements. CONCLUSION: This review highlights that the reporting of heart failure (HF) NP outcome indicators was inconsistent and disparate across the literature. The outcome measures reported were not exclusive to NP interventions. Nurse Practitioner roles are not clearly defined, and resulting outcomes from care are difficult to characterize. Standardized NP-specific outcome measures would serve to highlight the effectiveness of the role in a multidisciplinary HF team.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Nurse Practitioners , Humans , Heart Failure/nursing , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Nurse's Role , Quality of Life , Cardiovascular NursingABSTRACT
The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) database provides many references for reviews, but many relevant articles are missed, especially when the topic is complex. Reported here is the detailed methodology of a PubMed search of MEDLINE augmented by a related articles link search. Of 1181 citations identified, through a PubMed search, 10 articles met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-one were identified through the related articles link; of which 43 were not detected by standard searches using medical subject heading terms. More than 50% were identified using the related articles link. Only 14% of relevant articles were identified using the standard PubMed MEDLINE search. The related articles link is not included in methodologic recommendations for systematic literature reviews but this experience suggests that it is a useful tool in PubMed for reviewing complex evidence. Related links searches are proposed in any systematic PubMed MEDLINE literature review in palliative medicine.
