PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12238795

Advanced nursing practice--evolution or revolution?

Sandra Richardson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article has been written to challenge the seemingly unquestioning acceptance of changing roles in New Zealand nursing. It is evident in nursing history that a number of issues, such as community versus hospital services and generalist versus specialist practice, tend to resurface in a cyclic manner. Characteristics that are currently associated with 'advanced' nursing roles can be recognised when the origins and development of nursing in New Zealand are traced. This gives rise to speculation that changes to nursing scope of practice are not so much revolutionary as evolutionary, and can perhaps be viewed as a reclaiming rather than a redefining of nursing roles.

Explore related subjects

Attitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansNew ZealandNurse CliniciansNurse PractitionersNurse's RoleOrganizational InnovationProfessional AutonomySocial PerceptionSpecializationJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sandra Richardson. 2002. Advanced nursing practice--evolution or revolution?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12238795/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

US physicians' attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.

Genetic testing for an inherited susceptibility to cancer is an emerging technology in medical practice. Little information is currently available about physicians' attitudes toward these tests. To assess US physicians' opinions on unresolved issues surrounding genetic testing, a 15-min survey was administered to a stratified random sample of 1,251 physicians from 8 specialties, selected from a file of all licensed physicians in the US (response rate = 71.0%). Dependent measures included physicians' attitudes toward genetic counseling and testing qualifications, availability of guidelines, patient confidentiality and insurance discrimination issues, and clinical utility of genetic tests. More than 89% of physicians reported a need for physician guidelines, 81% thought that patients with positive genetic test results are at risk for insurance discrimination, and more than 53% thought that it was difficult to ensure the confidentiality of test results. Almost 25% indicated that genetic tests for cancer susceptibility have too many inaccurate or ambiguous results; nearly 75% thought that clear guidelines are not available for managing patients with positive test results. Only 29% of physicians reported feeling qualified to provide genetic counseling to their patients. More than 84% of oncologists considered themselves qualified to recommend genetic testing to their patients compared with 40% of primary care physicians (PCPs), and 57% of tertiary care physicians (TCPs). US physicians expressed great uncertainty about issues surrounding genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Results of this national survey underscore the need to provide physicians with clear guidelines on the use of genetic cancer susceptibility tests and effective medical training on their appropriate implementation.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗