ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring Nurse Dyads' experiences of scope of practice in nursing homes: A qualitative descriptive study from the FLORENCE project.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA nurse's scope of practice includes the full range of roles, functions, responsibilities, and decision-making authority. However, how this scope-particularly in relation to the fundamentals of care-is experienced by registered nurses and non-registered nurses in nursing homes remains underexplored. This study aimed to explore the experiences of nurses regarding their mutual general scope of practice, the differences in their individual scope of practice, and their respective scopes in relation to the fundamentals of care in the context of nursing homes.
methodsThis qualitative study included eight nursing dyads (n = 16) from four nursing homes in south-east Norway. Data were collected through individual, focused interviews, i.e., non-dyadic data, and analysed using the framework method for dyadic analysis. The study followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).
resultsRegistered nurses described emotional strain due to a gap between professional ideals and the realities of high-pressure, understaffed environments. The contrast between being perceived as "too posh to wash" and "too busy" highlighted how systemic factors, rather than personal attitudes, shaped role perceptions. These constraints influenced care delivery and undermined their professional identity. Registered nurses tended to focus on indirect care and physical needs, while non-registered nurses took on more direct care, particularly the fundamentals of care-physical, relational, and psychosocial. Although the registered nurses valued holistic care, frequent delegation to the non-registered nurses raised concerns about care quality and role clarity.
conclusionRegistered nurses' scope of practice was shaped more by workload demands than by reluctance to engage in the fundamentals of care. The dyadic approach provided new insights into how professional responsibilities and activities are co-constructed in complex care settings. Findings highlight the need for organisational and clinical strategies to clarify role boundaries, strengthen registered nurses' professional identity, reinforce the delivery of the fundamentals of care, and support effective and safe delegation practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.