Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34987045›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Nationwide evaluation of the advanced clinical practitioner role in England: a cross-sectional survey.

Lauren Jade Fothergill, Amani Al-Oraibi, Jonathan Houdmont, Joy Conway, Catrin Evans, Stephen Timmons, Ruth Pearce, Holly Blake

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
18.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A new tool to support research capability building.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren Jade FothergillSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Amani Al-OraibiSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1502-2627
Jonathan HoudmontSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Joy ConwayCentre for Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6464-1526
Catrin EvansSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5338-2191
Stephen TimmonsUniversity of Nottingham Business School, Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Ruth PearceSchool of Nursing, AHPs and Midwifery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Holly BlakeNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK holly.blake@nottingham.ac.uk.
University of Nottingham · GBBrunel University of London · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY

objectiveIn response to growing pressures on healthcare systems, the advanced clinical practice (ACP) role has been implemented widely in the UK and internationally. In England, ACP is a level of practice applicable across various healthcare professions, who exercise a level of autonomy across four domains, referred to as the four pillars of practice (education, leadership, research and clinical practice). A national framework for ACP was established in 2017 to ensure consistency across the ACP role, however current ACP governance, education and support is yet to be evaluated. This study aimed to analyse data from a national survey of the ACP role to inform the development and improvement of policies relating to ACP in the National Health Service (NHS) in England.

designA cross-sectional survey with free-text comments.

settingThe survey was distributed across primary and secondary levels of care to three distinct groups in England, including individual ACPs, NHS provider organisations and Trusts and primary care settings.

participantsA total of 4365 surveys were returned, from ACP staff (n=4013), NHS provider organisations and Trusts (n=166) and primary care organisations (n=186).

resultsConsiderable variation was found in role titles, scope of practice, job descriptions and educational backgrounds of ACPs. Differing approaches to governance were noted, which led to inconsistent ACP frameworks in some organisations. A further challenge highlighted included committing time to work across the four pillars of advanced practice, particularly the research pillar. ACPs called for improvements in supervision and continuing professional development alongside further support in navigating career pathways.

conclusionsA standardised approach may support ACP workforce development in England and enable ACPs to work across the four pillars of practice. Due to the wide uptake of ACP roles internationally, this study has relevance across professions for global healthcare workforce transformation.

Indexed as

Palliative CareState MedicineCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandHumansSurveys and Questionnairesclinical governancemedical education & trainingorganisational developmentorganisation of health services

Identifiers

PMID34987045
PMCPMC8734004
OpenAlexW4205961343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.