IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i1-2pe287-e300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementing two nurse practitioner models of service at an Australian male prison: A quality assurance study

Author

Listed:
  • Ides Wong
  • Eryn Wright
  • Damian Santomauro
  • Raquel How
  • Christopher Leary
  • Meredith Harris

Abstract

Aims and objectives To examine the quality and safety of nurse practitioner services of two newly implemented nurse practitioner models of care at a correctional facility. Background Nurse practitioners could help to meet the physical and mental health needs of Australia's growing prison population; however, the nurse practitioner role has not previously been evaluated in this context. Design A quality assurance study conducted in an Australian prison where a primary health nurse practitioner and a mental health nurse practitioner were incorporated into an existing primary healthcare service. The study was guided by Donabedian's structure, processes and outcomes framework. Methods Routinely collected information included surveys of staff attitudes to the implementation of the nurse practitioner models (n = 21 staff), consultation records describing clinical processes and time use (n = 289 consultations), and a patient satisfaction survey (n = 29 patients). Data were analysed descriptively and compared to external benchmarks where available. Results Over the two‐month period, the nurse practitioners provided 289 consultations to 208 prisoners. The presenting problems treated indicated that most referrals were appropriate. A significant proportion of consultations involved medication review and management. Both nurse practitioners spent more than half of their time on individual patient‐related care. Overall, multidisciplinary team staff agreed that the nurse practitioner services were necessary, safe, met patient need and reduced treatment delays. Conclusions Findings suggest that the implementation of nurse practitioners into Australian correctional facilities is acceptable and feasible and has the potential to improve prisoners' access to health services. Structural factors (e.g., room availability and limited access to prisoners) may have reduced the efficiency of the nurse practitioners' clinical processes and service implementation. Relevance to clinical practice Results suggest that nurse practitioner models can be successfully integrated into a prison setting and could provide a nursing career pathway.

Suggested Citation

  • Ides Wong & Eryn Wright & Damian Santomauro & Raquel How & Christopher Leary & Meredith Harris, 2018. "Implementing two nurse practitioner models of service at an Australian male prison: A quality assurance study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1-2), pages 287-300, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:1-2:p:e287-e300
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13935
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13935
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13935?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glenn Gardner & Anne Gardner & Jane O'Connell, 2014. "Using the Donabedian framework to examine the quality and safety of nursing service innovation," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1-2), pages 145-155, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Natalie Bradford & Shirley Chambers & Adrienne Hudson & Jacqui Jauncey‐Cooke & Robyn Penny & Carol Windsor & Patsy Yates, 2019. "Evaluation frameworks in health services: An integrative review of use, attributes and elements," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(13-14), pages 2486-2498, July.

    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:27:y:2018:i:1-2:p:e287-e300. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.