The discursive practices of nurse practitioner legislation in Australia

Aim. The aim of this paper was to examine the nurse practitioner legislative framework in Australia from a critical social theory perspective. Background. National regulation for nurses and midwives has superseded all previous state legislation with effect from July 2010. The aim of this change was to streamline regulation processes across all health professionals requiring regulation, in order to eliminate diverse state-based regulatory policies that were identified as hindering transferability of the workforce across Australia. This paper explores the changes with reference to nurse practitioners. Since their introduction to Australia different legislative practices between states have presented difficult endorsement procedures which have affected employment. Data sources. Information for the paper is drawn from a doctoral study which examined the politics of advancing nursing in Australia, with particular reference to the discourses of nurse practitioners. This is augmented by more recent legislative documents and policies, as well as media reports, to examine the process of change in legislation and the unfolding discourses on employment and practice. Implications to nursing. Nurse practitioner endorsement may be more complicated, defeating the original premise of transferability of a skilled workforce across state jurisdictions. Conclusion. This paper exposes the influence that powerful discourses can have on a major change to professional practice. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

National nursing registration in Australia: A way forward for nurse practitioner endorsement

Purpose: The move to national registration of health professionals and the creation of the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA) provides both challenges and opportunities for the regulation of nurse practitioners (NPs) in Australia. Data sources: National and state health policy documents, accessible on the Internet, concerning the regulation and endorsement processes for NPs in Australia were examined. Conclusions: The similarities between two of the previous jurisdictional NP endorsement processes in New South Wales and Victoria provide a common ground on which to build a robust national system. However, there are also key differences between these two states. These differences were mainly in the evidence required to assess competency of NP applicants and the authority to prescribe medications. All Victorian NP applicants were required to complete an approved medication subject at a master's level. Implications for practice: A consistent endorsement process that delivers NPs of the highest standard and allows for efficient use of their skills and expertise is vital. This needs to be performed with the aim of providing high-quality care in a regulatory environment that protects the public and clearly articulates the level of competence expected of all NPs. © 2012 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2012 American Academy of Nurse Practitioners