The Relationship Between Specialty Nurse Certification and Patient, Nurse and Organizational Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Objectives To review the current evidence on the relationship between specialty nurse certification and outcomes. Design A structured and comprehensive systematic review was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework to include both published research studies and expert opinion papers. Data sources Four electronic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsychINFO were searched between 2000 and 2018. The search for expert opinion papers included nursing organizations, OaLster, Grey Literature Report, and The National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators. Review methods The records generated through the search were exported to EndNote X8 and duplicates were removed. Title and abstracts of the records were screened by three reviewers for eligibility using the selection criteria. In the absence of an abstract, records were retained for full text review. Full text assessment of each paper was conducted by two reviewers with a third referee, if necessary, to review any discrepancies. In the case of multiple articles drawing on one set of primary data, only one article was included. A review of each article was completed using the JBI Quality Appraisal checklists to assess internal and external reliability and validity. Both quality appraisal and data extraction were conducted by the review team independently and were validated by one other member of the team. Discrepancies were resolved through rigorous discussion between the reviewers. Results Forty one original research studies were included in the final analysis of the literature. The findings from the included articles were synthesized into three major categories and subsequent sub-categories: Patient outcomes, nurse outcomes and organizational outcomes. Twenty seven findings contributed to the sub-category of specialty nurse certification and patient outcomes. Patient outcomes were further classified into nurse sensitive outcomes, patient mortality and patient satisfaction. Fifty-four findings related to nurse outcomes with the sub-categories: personal and professional factors, knowledge and skills, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, empowerment and confidence. Six findings related to organizational benefits: including the sub-categories of nursing turnover and vacancy rates, perception of healthcare, and costs to the organization. Conclusions The current model risks driving further proliferation of specialty certifications and certifying organizations without questioning the assumptions underlying the goals of certification. The challenges of measuring impact and the cost and value to individual nurses and healthcare organizations are key areas for consideration.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Whitehead et al. revealed the critical role of specialist nurses in outcomes related to nursing-sensitive indicators, including pressure ulcers, infection rates, and falls.
“Whitehead et al. revealed the critical role of specialist nurses in outcomes related to nursing‐sensitive indicators, including pressure ulcers, infection rates, and falls [23].”
From Longitudinal Analysis and Predictive Modeling of Nursing‐Sensitive Quality Indicators in Hemodialysis (2026) · cites this paper as [23]
Cites
Systematic Reviews: Constructing a Search Strategy and Searching for Evidence
Aromataris, E., & Riitano, D. (2014) · AJN, American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000446779.99522.f6 · Cited by 523 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review
Leslie, K., Bourgeault, I. L., Carlton, A.-L., Balasubramanian, M., Mirshahi, R., Short, S. D., Carè, J., Cometto, G., & Lin, V. (2023) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-023-00848-y · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Tang, S., Li, Q., Liu, L., He, L., Zhang, Y., & Chen, L. (2026) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1155/jonm/8833031
- Authors
- Whitehead, L., Ghosh, M., Walker, D. K., Bloxsome, D., Vafeas, C., & Wilkinson, A.
- Affiliations
- Edith Cowan University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Whitehead, Lisa
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Nursing Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 93
- Pages
- 1-11
- ISSN
- 0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2913706743
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2025-11-01)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Nursing Studies (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Edith Cowan University Research Online (Edith Cowan University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Hospice and Palliative Nurses Foundation (Sub/76484)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Leadership and Management › Healthcare Education and Workforce Issues
- Keywords
- nurse-sensitive outcomes, patient outcomes, nursing outcomes, organizational outcomes, patient satisfaction, patient mortality, nurse turnover, nursing satisfaction, nurse empowerment, certification costs, nursing competencies
- MeSH terms
- Certification, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Nursing Staff, Patients, Specialties, Nursing, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review