A comparison between the perceptions of education providers and industry in the preparation of enrolled nurses for their graduate scope of practice
Creators: name: Letts, Carol
Publisher: name: Torrens University Australia
Year: 2024
Subjects: classificationCode: 420505
subject: Nursing workforce

description: There is a predicted global shortage and concerns around retaining and recruiting more qualified nurses to provide care in the future. In Australia, there are two levels of qualified nurses, Registered Nurses (RNs) and Enrolled Nurses (ENs). These nurses work alongside each other within their given differentiated standards of practice, which are set out by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA). However, whilst confusion over EN scope of practice has long been documented, there are no studies noted to compare the perceptions of Nurse Educators and Nurse Supervisors over what constitutes EN scope of practice in terms of direct nursing care (see glossary) and indirect nursing care (see glossary) in contemporary clinical practice. Aim: To compare and analyse perceptions of Nurse Educators and Nurse Supervisors working within industry settings over what constitutes EN scope of professional practice to see if perceptions align. Objective 1: To compare understanding of Nurse Educators and industry (Nurse Supervisors) regarding what direct and indirect nursing care tasks can be undertaken by ENs in the clinical setting. Objective 2: To compare the perceptions of Nurse Educators and Nurse Supervisors regarding what constitutes EN graduate scope of practice. Method: A cross-sectional survey design was used. Recruitment was via non-probability convenience and snowball sampling. An online questionnaire was administered, covering topics such as demographic data, activities of direct and indirect nursing care tasks undertaken, and understanding of scope of practice. All participants of this study were Registered Nurses (n=44) working in South Australia, with a resulting split of which there were 21 Nurse Educators (47.7%) and 23 industry Nurse Supervisors (52.3 %). Results: There was general agreement of perception as to what tasks were within the EN scope of practice for many of the indirect nursing care tasks, as well as some of the basic direct nursing tasks. However, there was greater uncertainty shown as tasks grew in complexity and also for questions related to understanding of scope of practice, not only between the groups but within them. Comments from the participants also suggested uncertainty and evidenced v that there was great dependence on the context of individual organisations and individual managers as to what tasks could be undertaken by ENs in practice. The results support the view that despite a national training package and national practice standards, whether in the classroom or in clinical practice there is uncertainty from both Nurse Educators and Nurse Supervisors regarding what an EN can and cannot do in the workplace. Conclusion: There is a need for greater clarification of EN roles and responsibilities that consider educational changes and align with contemporary EN practice standards. Furthermore, thisinformation needsto be disseminated to educational and health care providers to ensure ENs are working to their full scope of practice and recognised for their role within the healthcare team.