See the published version of this preprint at BMC Nursing.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background : The role of nurse practitioners (NPs) is always expanding. The Japanese Nurse Practitioner (JNP) system was initiated in 2015 with the goal of shifting some aspects of doctors' work to various other healthcare professionals including nurses. Depending on the way in which JNPs fulfill their roles, a certain degree of efficacy has been exemplified with regard to patients and facility users. NPs are considered legally liable for their medical practice, because they ultimately perform that practice on behalf of a doctor; however, there is a degree of ambiguity in real life. It is necessary to clarify NPs' legal liability, to ensure the safety of medical practice and protect them in medical procedures performed on behalf of physicians. This study aimed to clarify how JNPs fulfill their own legal liability in medical practice.
Methods : A qualitative, inductive research design was adopted to record participants’ opinions. The survey was conducted from October 2017 to February 2018. The participants were nurses working as JNPs at general hospitals in eastern Japan. We recruited participants via snowball sampling.
Results : With regard to JNPs’ legal liability in their medical practice, three scopes of understanding were observed: “identify whether the JNP has the ability to perform the assigned medical procedure,” “anxiety when performing medical procedures in place of a doctor,” and “follow up medical practice through to the end.”
Conclusions : We demonstrated that JNPs fulfilled their own legal liability in medical practice. They were legally responsible for the implementation of medical procedures and had to protect themselves, as their legal position was ambiguous. Moreover, even if JNPs performed legally ambiguous medical procedures, they fulfilled their responsibility as JNP through their actions. Furthermore, JNPs accepted that diagnosis and prescribing could be performed on behalf of doctors if trusting relationships were established with doctors.
Keywords
Japanese nurse practitioner, medical practice, nurse practitioner, legal liability, qualitative research
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Nursing.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 01 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 27 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 25 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 20 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 14 May, 2020
Version 1
Posted 05 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 17 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 29 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 08 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 28 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 28 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 14 Aug, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Nursing
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Nursing.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Nursing.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 01 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 27 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 25 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 20 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 14 May, 2020
Version 1
Posted 05 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 17 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 29 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 08 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 28 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 28 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 14 Aug, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Nursing
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Nursing.
Background : The role of nurse practitioners (NPs) is always expanding. The Japanese Nurse Practitioner (JNP) system was initiated in 2015 with the goal of shifting some aspects of doctors' work to various other healthcare professionals including nurses. Depending on the way in which JNPs fulfill their roles, a certain degree of efficacy has been exemplified with regard to patients and facility users. NPs are considered legally liable for their medical practice, because they ultimately perform that practice on behalf of a doctor; however, there is a degree of ambiguity in real life. It is necessary to clarify NPs' legal liability, to ensure the safety of medical practice and protect them in medical procedures performed on behalf of physicians. This study aimed to clarify how JNPs fulfill their own legal liability in medical practice.
Methods : A qualitative, inductive research design was adopted to record participants’ opinions. The survey was conducted from October 2017 to February 2018. The participants were nurses working as JNPs at general hospitals in eastern Japan. We recruited participants via snowball sampling.
Results : With regard to JNPs’ legal liability in their medical practice, three scopes of understanding were observed: “identify whether the JNP has the ability to perform the assigned medical procedure,” “anxiety when performing medical procedures in place of a doctor,” and “follow up medical practice through to the end.”
Conclusions : We demonstrated that JNPs fulfilled their own legal liability in medical practice. They were legally responsible for the implementation of medical procedures and had to protect themselves, as their legal position was ambiguous. Moreover, even if JNPs performed legally ambiguous medical procedures, they fulfilled their responsibility as JNP through their actions. Furthermore, JNPs accepted that diagnosis and prescribing could be performed on behalf of doctors if trusting relationships were established with doctors.
Loading...