Cited by 107Nursing Roles and PracticesEmergency and Acute Care StudiesNursing education and management

Blurring boundaries: professional perspectives of the emergency nurse practitioner role in a major accident and emergency department

Tye, Christopher C., Ross, Fiona M.·2000·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

The role of the emergency nurse practitioner (ENP) has increasingly become part of mainstream healthcare delivery in major accident and emergency departments in the United Kingdom. Although some research data are available in this field, there has been little attempt to evaluate the impact of the implementation of the ENP role from the perspective of those healthcare professionals most closely involved at local level. This paper describes one part of a case study evaluation of the role in an accident and emergency department in the South Thames English region. Nine face-to-face semi-structured interviews were carried out with the key multidisciplinary stakeholders in the organization. Five major themes emerged from the data analysis: blurring role boundaries; managing uncertainty; individual variation; quality vs. quantity; and the organizational context. Whilst some professional consensus was evident regarding the benefits of the role, such as improved waiting times and patient satisfaction, there appeared also to be a degree of ambivalence, particularly regarding current role configuration, value for money, and the extent to which the role should be expanded in the future. These issues are discussed in terms of professional identity, changing role boundaries, and professional personhood. It is argued that the benefits and pitfalls of the ENP role need to be considered within the context of local service provision. The growing emphasis on clinical governance reinforces the n…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01380.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The finding concerning the blurring of boundaries is consistent with those of Benner (1984), Conway (1996, 1998) and Tye and Ross (2000).

    “This finding concerning the blurring of boundaries is consistent with those of Benner (1984), Conway (1996Conway ( , 1998) ) and Tye and Ross (2000).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tye, C. C., & Ross, F. M.
Affiliations
St George's, University of London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-05
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
1089-1096
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2035488453
Cited by
107
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
FWCI
6.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Kingston University London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Smith and Nephew
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
Keywords
emergency nurse practitioners, role boundaries, professional identity, emergency department, role implementation, clinical governance, quality versus quantity, value for money, patient waiting time, patient satisfaction, uncertainty management
MeSH terms
Emergency Service, Hospital, England, Humans, Nurse Practitioners, Quality of Health Care, Role, Program Evaluation, Emergency Nursing, Organizational Case Studies

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