The case for full practice authority / Olivia Holmes, Shanieka Kinsey-Weathers
Series: Nursing 2016. 46 : 3, page 51-54 Publication details: March 2016.Content type:- text
- unmediated
- volume
Current library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
---|---|---|---|---|
Manila Tytana Colleges Library REFERENCE SECTION | Bound (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Not For Loan |
Browsing Manila Tytana Colleges Library shelves, Shelving location: REFERENCE SECTION Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended in its 2010 report on the future of nursing that advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) should factor prominently in providing care to the millions of Americans who access healthcare services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The IOM also recommended that APRNs practice to the full extent of their education and training.However, many states have laws in place that limit full practice authority for APRNs, specifically NPs, in providing basic health services such as primary care. These laws place restrictions on independent practice and Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement, which prevent nurses from "responding effectively to rapidly changing health care settings and an evolving health care system." Less than half of the United States has adopted full practice authority licensure and practice laws (see APRN practice authority at a glance). This article discusses how the primary care needs of millions of Americans can be met by granting full practice authority to APRNs nationwide and provides evidence to support the high level of care these practitioners can provide independently.
Nursing
There are no comments on this title.