Georgie Cusack

Validating the Clinical Research Nursing Domain of Practice

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES To develop and validate a taxonomy for the domain of clinical research nursing. DESIGN Survey. SETTING Clinical research settings in the United States. SAMPLE A purposefully selected expert panel of 22 nurses who were actively practicing or supervising in a clinical research environment. METHODS A study team consisting of nurses with experience in clinical research synthesized peer-reviewed articles, academic curricula, professional guidelines, position descriptions, and expert opinion. Using the Delphi technique, three rounds of surveys were conducted to validate the taxonomy. The three sequential questionnaires were completed over five months. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES Activities performed by nurses in a clinical research setting. FINDINGS A taxonomy for clinical research nursing was validated with five dimensions and 52 activities: Clinical Practice (4 activities), Study Management (23 activities), Care Coordination and Continuity (10 activities), Human Subjects Protection (6 activities), and Contributing to the Science (9 activities). CONCLUSIONS This study validated activities for direct care providers and nurses with the primary focus of research coordination. The findings identify a variety of activities that are unique to nurses in a clinical research setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING Nurses play an integral role in the clinical research enterprise. Validating a taxonomy for the specialty of clinical research nursing allows for roles to be compared across settings, competency requirements to be defined, and nursing organizations to be guided in the development of specialty certification.

Defining Clinical Research Nursing Practice: Results of a Role Delineation Study

Clinical research nursing is a specialty nursing practice focused on the care of research subjects and implementation of clinical research. A five‐dimensional model (Clinical Practice [CP], Study Management, Care Coordination and Continuity, Contributing to the Science [CS], Human Subjects Protection) has been validated nationally to represent the domain of clinical research nursing practice. The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency and importance of activities within each dimension as performed by nurses in clinical research and to describe differences between roles. One thousand and four nurses from the NIH Intramural Campus in Bethesda, Maryland, were invited to participate in an anonymous web‐based survey. Participants (N = 412) were predominantly female (90%) with ≥11 years research experience (70%). Two hundred eighty‐eight respondents (70%) identified themselves as clinical research nurses (CRNs) and 74 (18%) as research nurse coordinators (RNCs). CP activities were reported most frequent and important whereas CS activities were least frequent and important. CRN and RNC activity frequency differed across all dimensions (p < 0.001) with CRNs reporting significantly higher levels of CP activities and significantly lower levels in other dimensions. Delineating specialty activities and practice across roles enhances the understanding of nurses’ role in clinical research and provides groundwork for role‐based training. Clin Trans Sci 2011; Volume 4: 421–427

Developing Competency to Sustain Evidence-based Practice

Organizations must ensure that nursing care delivery is based on best evidence. This article describes how a clinical research hospital used a competency-based approach to structure the development and execution of a strategic plan and integrated evidence-based practice concepts into the activities of nurses at all levels. The article will also describe the process for developing and implementing the competency across our department including outcomes achieved.

Patient Acuity Related to Clinical Research: Concept Clarification and Literature Review:

In research settings, clinical and research requirements contribute to nursing workload, staffing decisions, and resource allocation. The aim of this article is to define patient acuity in the context of clinical research, or research intensity, and report available instruments to measure it. The design was based on Centre for Reviews and Dissemination recommendations, including defining search terms, developing inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by abstract review by three members of the team, thorough reading of each article by two team members, and data extraction procedures, including a quality appraisal of each article. Few instruments were available to measure research intensity. Findings provide foundational work for conceptual clarity and tool development, both of which are necessary before workforce allocation based on research intensity can occur.