Response and innovations of advanced practice nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review.

AIM: Identify and map international evidence regarding innovations led by or involving advanced practice nurses in response to COVID-19. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 necessitated unprecedented innovation in the organization and delivery of healthcare. Although advanced practice nurses have played a pivotal role during the pandemic, evidence of their contributions to innovations has not been synthesized. Evidence is needed to inform policies, practices, and research about the optimal use of advanced practice nurses. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted and reported using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2020 and December 2021. Papers were included that focused on innovations emerging in response to COVID-19 and involved advanced practice nurses. RESULTS: Fifty-one articles were included. Four themes were identified including telehealth, supporting and transforming care, multifaceted approaches, and provider education. Half of the articles used brief and mostly noncomparative approaches to evaluate innovations. CONCLUSION: This is the first synthesis of international evidence examining the contributions of advanced practice nurses during the pandemic. Advanced practice nurses provided leadership for the innovation needed to rapidly respond to healthcare needs resulting from COVID-19. Innovations challenged legislative restrictions on practice, enabled implementation of telehealth and new models of care, and promoted evidence-informed and patient-centered care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Advanced practice nurses led, designed, implemented, and evaluated innovations in response to COVID-19. They facilitated the use of telehealth, supported or transformed models of care, and enabled health providers through education, mentorship, and mental health support. IMPLICATION FOR POLICY: Advanced practice nurses are a critical resource for innovation and health system improvement. Permanent removal of legislative and regulatory barriers to their full scope of practice is needed.

Differentiating Specialized and Advanced Nursing Roles: The Pathway to Role Optimization.

Aim: We aimed to differentiate the practice patterns of nurses in specialized and advanced roles in a cross-sectional study. Method: Canadian nurses completed a self-report questionnaire (June 2017-September 2017). Demographic data and time spent in five domains of advanced practice were compared across three nurse groups. Regression analysis examined factors associated with domain involvement. Results: Respondents (n = 1,107) represented all provinces/territories, including 396 specialized nurses (SNs), 211 clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) and 490 nurse practitioners (NPs). Nurses across all groups were the most involved in direct comprehensive care and the least involved in research. NPs were more involved in direct comprehensive care compared to CNSs (p < 0.001) and SNs (p < 0.001). CNSs were more involved than SNs and NPs in support of systems, education, research and professional leadership (p < 0.001). Role type, years as an advanced practice nurse and specialist certification were modest predictors of domain involvement. Conclusion: Distinguishing how specialized and advanced nursing roles contribute to healthcare can inform policies to support their optimal utilization in healthcare systems.

Patient-reported outcome instruments used in immune-checkpoint inhibitor clinical trials in oncology: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have shown significant benefits for overall survival across various cancer types. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed in clinical trials as a measure of efficacy. However, it remains unclear to what extent current PRO instruments capture symptoms specific to ICI toxicities. We conducted a systematic review to identify the use and content validity of PRO instruments in ICI clinical trials in oncology. METHODS: Literature was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Medline and CINAHL databases. Articles presenting ICI clinical trials' PRO results, clinical trial study protocols, and conference abstracts stating the use of PRO measures were assessed. We evaluated the validity of identified instruments by comparing their symptom-related content with the adverse events reported in each ICI clinical trial. RESULTS: From database inception until January 2020, we identified 191 ICI clinical trials stating the use of PRO measures of which 26 published PRO results. The cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 and the generic EQ-5D questionnaires were the most widely used instruments, often in combination with disease-specific PROs. Instruments used to report PRO symptom-related toxicities covered 45% of the most frequently reported AEs, whereas 23% of AEs were partially covered and 29% were not covered at all. Of non-covered AEs, 59% referred to the dermatologic system. Partially covered AEs related to endocrine and specific types of pain. CONCLUSION: Despite the high frequency of symptom-related toxicities related to ICI, these events are only partially covered (or not addressed) by current PRO instruments, even when combined. Further research is needed to develop new strategies to tailor PRO instruments to specific ICI toxicities.