Back to the Future of Nursing

wierdflightattendantsBack to the Future of Nursing: A Look Ahead Based on a Landmark IOM Report, part of the Rosenthal Lecture Series, was held today at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. The panel discussion focused on progress made in the past three years since the release of IOM report The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health (FON). The webcast recording of the event will be posted soon. Check out their infographic poster which is quite nicely done.

Some of the highlights that I picked up on during this panel discussion included efforts to increase diversity in nursing as well as career mobility, and national efforts to increase scope-of-practice for nurse practitioners. Currently there are 17 states that allow nurse practitioners to be fully independent and two additional states that allow nurse practitioners to be ‘almost’ fully independent (Maryland and Utah). In the past three years seven states have removed major barriers to practice, and Nevada recently gave nurse practitioners full practice authority. Opposition by state medical organizations blocked passage of similar bills in Connecticut, Kentucky, New York, and most recently in California. But the momentum is growing in favor of independent practice for nurse practitioners across the country. The Federal Trade Commission is challenging limits to nursing scope-of-practice in many of the recalcitrant states (including, I hope, my home state of Virginia).

At the end of today’s lecture there was an excellent televised address by Rissa Lavizzo-Mourey, MD, who is the director of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (sponsor the FON report and follow-up efforts). Among other things she spoke of the need to change the “caste system in hospitals” that treats nurses as second-class citizens. That seems to be a daunting task.

I have read the entire IOM FON report several times and think it is an excellent document. (Previous blog post Undoing Nurses as Functional Doers Nov 24, 2010). Of course, being a primary care nurse practitioner myself with previous run-ins with state health regulatory boards over scope-of-practice issues (see To Forgive, Divine blog post), I have been cheering the efforts in this area spurred on by the IOM Future of Nursing report. And being a nurse educator who loves teaching (and who abhors most approaches to nursing education–another nursing care plan anyone?), I applaud the IOM/FON report section on changes needed within nursing education.

So what has changed for me in the past three years since the IOM FON report? Many faculty members invoke the FON report from time-to-time when making various points about needed changes in the curriculum. Not many of our current students have even heard of the report (shame! I need to assign parts of it as required reading). I’ve seen a large uptick in the support for interprofessional educational experiences for students and faculty. And I’ve seen an increased emphasis on adding leadership content as well as political advocacy skill-building activities for students within our various programs (although there’s still a shameful paucity of resources and nursing role models in these areas). The other thing that bugs me in the area of politics and policy education for nurses is the emphasis on self-advocacy for nursing practice. While that’s important, nurses can and should be using their advocacy skills and energies for less self-serving health policy changes.

Virginia Board of Nursing Wrap-up

In my previous blog post (Ir)regulation of the Health Professions, I briefly told the story of my run-in with the Virginia Health Regulatory Board, and how I was investigated by them for nine months. They (I think—I still have no written proof) then closed my case due to insufficient evidence. An independent state audit of the Virginia Health Regulatory Boards around the time of my encounter with them revealed that it took the Board of Medicine on average over two and a half years to conclude cases, and the Board of Nursing took over a year. In almost all cases, including ones involving serious violations, the Board of Medicine allowed physicians to continue practicing pending the outcome of the investigation. In contrast, the Board of Nursing usually ordered the nurse to not practice pending their final decision at the conclusion of the investigation. The Board of Nursing was the only health regulatory board to summarily suspend the license of nurses prior to the conclusion of the investigation. In the Virginia audit report, the authors pointed out that such long time delays in processing investigations posed a serious threat to public safety. They also stated that long delays in case processing placed an unfair burden on respondents (providers accused of wrong-doing).

 

Not having access to any written reports on my own case—including not knowing what I was accused of doing in the first place, I can only go by the notes I took during my meeting with the Attorney General at the time. From what I can gather, the Boards of Medicine and Nursing were disputing scope of practice standards for nurse practitioners and I was a likely test case. I remember testifying at a special hearing of the Virginia legislature about nurse practitioner scope of practice and why reforms in state laws were necessary for the provision of safety net services. Virginia remains one of the worst states in terms of nurse practitioner scope of practice. I don’t plan to practice there anytime soon, but I do hope they get their (nurse practice) act together. I know they are working on it.