Denise Bryant-Lukosius

Randomized phase II comparison of standard CHOP with weekly CHOP in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

PURPOSE To determine whether modifying the standard regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) from full doses given every 3 weeks to one-third doses given weekly (chop) increases the received chemotherapy dose-intensity in elderly patients with advanced-stage intermediate-grade lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Consenting patients, age > or = 65 years who had acceptable cardiac, renal, and liver function and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status less than 4, were stratified by bone marrow and performance status and randomized to receive standard CHOP or weekly chop. Drug doses were attenuated or escalated according to a defined dose-modification schedule. The primary outcome was average relative received dose-intensity. Secondary outcomes included response, progression-free and overall survival, toxicity, and performance status. RESULTS Nineteen patients were allocated to each group. No difference in received dose-intensity was seen. When dose-intensity was calculated for the first six cycles of therapy, average relative received dose-intensity was .92 with CHOP versus .89 with weekly chop (P = .5); when calculated for the first 18 weeks of therapy, values were .88 with CHOP versus .89 with weekly chop (P = .8). The complete response rate was 68% with CHOP versus 74% with weekly chop (P = .9). At 2 years, the progression-free survival rate was 57% with CHOP versus 46% with weekly chop (P = .16) and the survival rate was 74% with CHOP versus 51% with weekly chop (p = .05). More myelotoxicity was seen with CHOP. CONCLUSION We conclude that CHOP can be given in sufficient doses to elderly patients and that weekly chop does not increase received dose-intensity. Progression-free and overall survival are unlikely to be superior with weekly chop, and may be worse. CHOP should remain the standard against which new therapies for elderly patients with intermediate-grade lymphoma are compared.

The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research

Triangulation refers to the use of multiple methods or data sources in qualitative research to develop a comprehensive understanding of phenomena (Patton, 1999). Triangulation also has been viewed as a qualitative research strategy to test validity through the convergence of information from different sources. Denzin (1978) and Patton (1999) identified four types of triangulation: (a) method triangulation, (b) investigator triangulation, (c) theory triangulation, and (d) data source triangulation. The current article will present the four types of triangulation followed by a discussion of the use of focus groups (FGs) and in-depth individual (IDI) interviews as an example of data source triangulation in qualitative inquiry.

Primary health care nurse practitioners in Canada

Canada, like many countries, is in the midst of primary health care reform. A key priority is to improve access to primary health care, especially in remote communities and areas with physician shortages. As a result, there is an increased emphasis on the integration of primary health care nurse practitioners. As of March 2006, legislation exists in all provinces and two territories in Canada that allows nurse practitioners (NPs) to implement their expanded nursing role. In this paper, we will briefly review the historical development of the NP role in Canada and situate it in the international context; describe the NP role, supply of NPs in the country, and the settings in which they work; propose an NP practice model framework; summarize facilitators and barriers to NP role implementation in primary health care delivery; and outline strategies to address the barriers.

Cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners in primary and specialised ambulatory care: systematic review

Objective To determine the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners delivering primary and specialised ambulatory care. Design A systematic review of randomised controlled trials reported since 1980. Data sources 10 electronic bibliographic databases, handsearches, contact with authors, bibliographies and websites. Included studies Randomised controlled trials that evaluated nurse practitioners in alternative and complementary ambulatory care roles and reported health system outcomes. Results 11 trials were included. In four trials of alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but seven patient outcomes favouring nurse practitioner care and in all but four health system outcomes, one favouring nurse practitioner care and three favouring physician care. In a meta-analysis of two studies (2689 patients) with minimal heterogeneity and high-quality evidence, nurse practitioner care resulted in lower mean health services costs per consultation (mean difference: −€6.41; 95% CI −€9.28 to −€3.55; p<0.0001) (2006 euros). In two trials of alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but three patient outcomes and one health system outcome favouring nurse practitioner care. In five trials of complementary provider specialised ambulatory care roles, 16 patient/provider outcomes favouring nurse practitioner plus usual care, and 16 were equivalent. Two health system outcomes favoured nurse practitioner plus usual care, four favoured usual care and 14 were equivalent. Four studies of complementary specialised ambulatory care compared costs, but only one assessed costs and outcomes jointly. Conclusions Nurse practitioners in alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles have equivalent or better patient outcomes than comparators and are potentially cost-saving. Evidence for their cost-effectiveness in alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles is promising, but limited by the few studies. While some evidence indicates nurse practitioners in complementary specialised ambulatory care roles improve patient outcomes, their cost-effectiveness requires further study.

Practice patterns and perceived impact of clinical nurse specialist roles in Canada: Results of a national survey

BACKGROUND Clinical nurse specialists are recognized internationally for providing an advanced level of practice. They positively impact the delivery of healthcare services by using specialty-specific expert knowledge and skills, and integrating competencies as clinicians, educators, researchers, consultants and leaders. Graduate-level education is recommended for the role but many countries do not have formal credentialing mechanisms for clinical nurse specialists. Previous studies have found that clinical nurse specialist roles are poorly understood by stakeholders. Few national studies have examined the utilization of clinical nurse specialists. OBJECTIVE To identify the practice patterns of clinical nurse specialists in Canada. DESIGN A descriptive cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS Self-identified clinical nurse specialists in Canada. METHODS A 50-item self-report questionnaire was developed, pilot-tested in English and French, and administered to self-identified clinical nurse specialists from April 2011 to August 2011. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and content analysis. RESULTS The actual number of clinical nurse specialists in Canada remains unknown. The response rate using the number of registry-identified clinical nurse specialists was 33% (804/2431). Of this number, 608 reported working as a clinical nurse specialist. The response rate for graduate-prepared clinical nurse specialists was 60% (471/782). The practice patterns of clinical nurse specialists varied across clinical specialties. Graduate-level education influenced their practice patterns. Few administrative structures and resources were in place to support clinical nurse specialist role development. The lack of title protection resulted in confusion around who identifies themselves as a clinical nurse specialist and consequently made it difficult to determine the number of clinical nurse specialists in Canada. CONCLUSIONS This is the first national survey of clinical nurse specialists in Canada. A clearer understanding of these roles provides stakeholders with much needed information about clinical nurse specialist practice patterns. Such information can inform decisions about policies, education and organizational supports to effectively utilize this role in healthcare systems. This study emphasizes the need to develop standardized educational requirements, consistent role titles and credentialing mechanisms to facilitate the identification and comparison of clinical nurse specialist roles and role outcomes internationally.

Framework for Evaluating the Impact of Advanced Practice Nursing Roles

PURPOSE To address the gap in evidence-based information required to support the development of advanced practice nursing (APN) roles in Switzerland, stakeholders identified the need for guidance to generate strategic evaluation data. This article describes an evaluation framework developed to inform decisions about the effective utilization of APN roles across the country. APPROACH A participatory approach was used by an international group of stakeholders. Published literature and an evidenced-based framework for introducing APN roles were analyzed and applied to define the purpose, target audiences, and essential elements of the evaluation framework. Through subsequent meetings and review by an expert panel, the framework was developed and refined. FINDINGS A framework to evaluate different types of APN roles as they evolve to meet dynamic population health, practice setting, and health system needs was created. It includes a matrix of key concepts to guide evaluations across three stages of APN role development: introduction, implementation, and long-term sustainability. For each stage, evaluation objectives and questions examining APN role structures, processes, and outcomes from different perspectives (e.g., patients, providers, managers, policy-makers) were identified. CONCLUSIONS A practical, robust framework based on well-established evaluation concepts and current understanding of APN roles can be used to conduct systematic evaluations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The evaluation framework is sufficiently generic to allow application in developed countries globally, both for evaluation as well as research purposes.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical nurse specialists in outpatient roles: a systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Increasing numbers of clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) are working in outpatient settings. The objective of this paper is to describe a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CNSs delivering outpatient care in alternative or complementary provider roles. METHODS We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and seven other electronic databases, 1980 to July 2012 and hand-searched bibliographies and key journals. RCTs that evaluated formally trained CNSs and health system outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess quality of evidence for individual outcomes. RESULTS Eleven RCTs, four evaluating alternative provider (n = 683 participants) and seven evaluating complementary provider roles (n = 1464 participants), were identified. Results of the alternative provider RCTs (low-to-moderate quality evidence) were fairly consistent across study populations with similar patient outcomes to usual care, some evidence of reduced resource use and costs, and two economic analyses (one fair and one high quality) favouring CNS care. Results of the complementary provider RCTs (low-to-moderate quality evidence) were also fairly consistent across study populations with similar or improved patient outcomes and mostly similar health system outcomes when compared with usual care; however, the economic analyses were weak. CONCLUSIONS Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the effectiveness and two fair-to-high quality economic analyses support the cost-effectiveness of outpatient alternative provider CNSs. Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the effectiveness of outpatient complementary provider CNSs; however, robust economic evaluations are needed to address cost-effectiveness.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists: what is the quality of the evidence?

Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles. Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization). Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012. Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n = 11), NP-transition (n = 5), NP-inpatient (n = 2), CNS-outpatient (n = 11), CNS-transition (n = 13), and CNS-inpatient (n = 1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity. Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.

The clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of clinical nurse specialist‐led hospital to home transitional care: a systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) are major providers of transitional care. This paper describes a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CNS transitional care. METHODS We searched 10 electronic databases, 1980 to July 2013, and hand-searched reference lists and key journals for RCTs that evaluated health system outcomes of CNS transitional care. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Quality of Health Economic Studies tools. The quality of evidence for individual outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We pooled data for similar outcomes. RESULTS Thirteen RCTs of CNS transitional care were identified (n = 2463 participants). The studies had low (n = 3), moderate (n = 8) and high (n = 2) risk of bias and weak economic analyses. Post-cancer surgery, CNS care was superior in reducing patient mortality. For patients with heart failure, CNS care delayed time to and reduced death or re-hospitalization, improved treatment adherence and patient satisfaction, and reduced costs and length of re-hospitalization stay. For elderly patients and caregivers, CNS care improved caregiver depression and reduced re-hospitalization, re-hospitalization length of stay and costs. For high-risk pregnant women and very low birthweight infants, CNS care improved infant immunization rates and maternal satisfaction with care and reduced maternal and infant length of hospital stay and costs. CONCLUSIONS There is low-quality evidence that CNS transitional care improves patient health outcomes, delays re-hospitalization and reduces hospital length of stay, re-hospitalization rates and costs. Further research incorporating robust economic evaluation is needed.

Hospital to community transitional care by nurse practitioners: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness

OBJECTIVES To determine the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners delivering transitional care. DESIGN Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES Ten electronic databases, bibliographies, hand-searches, study authors, and websites. REVIEW METHODS We included randomised controlled trials that compared formally trained nurse practitioners to usual care and measured health system outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Quality of Health Economic Studies tools. We pooled data for similar outcomes and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool to rate the quality of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS Five trials met the inclusion criteria. One evaluated one alternative provider nurse practitioner (154 patients) and four evaluated six complementary provider nurse practitioners (1017 patients). Two were at low and three at high risk of bias and all had weak economic analyses. The alternative provider nurse practitioner had similar patient outcomes and resource use to the physician (low quality). Complementary provider nurse practitioners scored similarly to the control group in patient outcomes except for anxiety in rehabilitation patients (MD: -15.7, 95%CI: -20.73 to -10.67, p<0.001) (very low quality) and patient satisfaction after an abdominal hysterectomy (MD: 14, 95%CI: 3.5-24.5, p<0.01) (low quality), both favouring nurse practitioner care. Meta-analyses of index re-hospitalisation up to 42 days (n=766, pooled relative risk (RR): 0.69, 95%CI: 0.34-1.43, I(2)=0%) and any re-hospitalisation up to 180 days (n=800, pooled RR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.69-1.09, I(2)=32%) were inconclusive (low quality). Complementary provider nurse practitioners significantly reduced index re-hospitalisation over 90 days (RR: 0.55, 95%CI: 0.32-0.94, p=0.03) and 180 days (RR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.40-0.95, p=0.03) in complex care patients (both low quality) and they significantly reduced the number and duration of rehabilitation patient-to-staff consultation calls (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Given the low quality evidence, weak economic analyses, small sample sizes, and small number of nurse practitioners evaluated in each study, evidence of the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioner-transitional care is inconclusive and further research is needed.