IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v15y2006i9p1106-1114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of a nurse consultant's clinical activities and the search for patient outcomes in critical care

Author

Listed:
  • Debra Fairley
  • S. Jose Closs

Abstract

Aim. To describe the actual clinical activities undertaken by a critical care nurse consultant in an eight‐bedded adult surgical high dependency unit within a large NHS Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Background. In the United Kingdom, the first critical care nurse consultants were approved in 2000 following the Department of Health's (1999) revised career structure for nurses. Expert practice is a core function of the role although the nature of expert practice in the context of critical care is unclear. Expert practice is often deemed to be a feature of advanced practice and although a number of studies have investigated this in context of critical care, there is little insight into the nature of advanced practitioners’ clinical practice and how it might influence patient outcome. Design methods. A diary was used by a critical care nurse consultant to record activity during scheduled clinical sessions. Data were collected for four months: 39 sessions were evaluated. Qualitative data were content analysed and coded into categories. Clinical activities were coded, categorized and analysed using SPSS 11.0 for windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Findings. Clinical activities included direct care activities, clinical leadership, education and training. Two main themes emerged from the qualitative data and were categorized as clinical reasoning and clinical instruction. Clinical activities arising from clinical reasoning and clinical instruction were aimed at minimizing risk and the provision of quality care. In doing this, one of the outcomes was the detection and resolution of untoward clinical occurrences. Conclusion. The level of achievement – or end point – of clinical activities was that the patient was established in ‘a state free from risk or harm that optimises rehabilitation’. ‘A state free from risk or harm that optimizes rehabilitation’ might be one outcome reflecting the needs of individual critically ill patients that is sensitive to individual nursing contribution. Relevance to clinical practice. There is increasing pressure on health‐care professionals to identify and measure their individual impact on the outcome of patients. This study adds further insight into the complexities associated with evaluating the influence of individual contribution on patient outcome, especially when it is characterized by complex processes involving clinical judgement and decision‐making.

Suggested Citation

  • Debra Fairley & S. Jose Closs, 2006. "Evaluation of a nurse consultant's clinical activities and the search for patient outcomes in critical care," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(9), pages 1106-1114, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:9:p:1106-1114
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01401.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01401.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01401.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Krista Jokiniemi & Anna‐Maija Pietilä & Jari Kylmä & Kaisa Haatainen, 2012. "Advanced nursing roles: A systematic review," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 421-431, September.
    2. Christine Atsalos & Karen Biggs & Sabine Boensch & Fiona Lee Gavegan & Susan Heath & Marlene Payk & Grace Trapolini, 2014. "How clinical nurse and midwifery consultants optimise patient care in a tertiary referral hospital," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(19-20), pages 2874-2885, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:9:p:1106-1114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.