The prevalence of chronic illness and multimorbidity rises with population aging, thereby increasing the acuity of care. Consequently, the demand for emergency and critical care services has increased. However, the forecasted requirements for physicians have shown a continued shortage. Among efforts underway to search for innovations to strengthen the workforce, there is a heightened interest to have nurses in advanced practice participate in patient care at a great extent. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate the impact of increasing the autonomy of nurses assuming advanced practice roles in emergency and critical care settings on patient outcomes. The objectives of this study are to present, critically appraise, and synthesize the best available evidence on the impact of advanced practice nursing on quality of care, clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost in emergency and critical care settings. A comprehensive and systematic search of nine electronic databases and a hand-search of two key journals from 2006 to 2016 were conducted to identify studies evaluating the impact of advanced practice nursing in the emergency and critical care settings. Two authors were involved selecting the studies based on the inclusion criteria. Out of the original search yield of 12,061 studies, 15 studies were chosen for appraisal of methodological quality by two independent authors and subsequently included for analysis. Data was extracted using standardized tools. Narrative synthesis was undertaken to summarize and report the findings. This review demonstrates that the involvement of nurses in advanced practice in emergency and critical care improves the length of stay, time to consultation/treatment, mortality, patient satisfaction, and cost savings. Capitalizing on nurses in advanced practice to increase patients’ access to emergency and critical care is appealing. This review suggests that the implementation of advanced practice nursing roles in the emergency and critical care settings improves patient outcomes. The transformation of healthcare delivery through effective utilization of the workforce may alleviate the impending rise in demand for health services. Nevertheless, it is necessary to first prepare a receptive context to effect sustainable change.

We aim to explore the perceptions of registered nurses undergoing the advanced practice nurse preparatory programme and of advanced practice nurses towards the recruitment of men into the advanced practice nursing workforce. Given the need to expand and diversify the advanced practice nursing workforce, it is important to recognize the potential implications of gender disparity. It is critical to understand why few males are recruited into the advanced practice nursing preparatory programme and to determine whether gender‐related bias is present in the professional development of nurses. We use a descriptive qualitative design. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted via Zoom (April to August 2021). Three themes were generated: ‘The odds are eventually in the favour of men’, ‘The APN career‐track is unpopular among men’, and ‘Balancing the gender gap in the APN workforce’. All themes are supported by three subthemes. Although males in nursing enjoy opportunistic advantages in entering the advanced practice nursing workforce, they are not interested in the role and not staying long enough in the nursing profession to become advanced practice nurses. Nurse managers should be more cognizant of the different social stereotypes faced by males and females in nursing. With such awareness, they can be more supportive and less biased in career counselling and job appraisals.

Background: The use of technology to support nurses' decision‐making is increasing in response to growing healthcare demands. AI, a global trend, holds great potential to enhance nurses' daily work if implemented systematically, paving the way for a promising future in healthcare. Objectives: To identify and describe AI technologies for nurses' clinical decision‐making in healthcare settings. Design: A systematic literature review. Data Sources: CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, and Medic were searched for studies with experimental design published between 2005 and 2024. Review Methods: JBI guidelines guided the review. At least two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the studies based on title, abstract, and full text, as well as the methodological quality of the studies. Narrative analysis of the study findings was performed. Results: Eight studies showed AI tools improved decision‐making, patient care, and staff performance. A discharge support system reduced 30‐day readmissions from 22.2% to 9.4% ( p = 0.015); a deterioration algorithm cut time to contact senior staff ( p = 0.040) and order tests ( p = 0.049). Neonatal resuscitation accuracy rose to 94%–95% versus 55%–80% ( p < 0.001); seizure assessment confidence improved ( p = 0.01); pressure ulcer prevention ( p = 0.002) and visual differentiation ( p < 0.001) improved. Documentation quality increased ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: AI integration in nursing has the potential to optimise decision‐making, improve patient care quality, and enhance workflow efficiency. Ethical considerations must address transparency, bias mitigation, data privacy, and accountability in AI‐driven decisions, ensuring patient safety and trust while supporting equitable, evidence‐based care delivery. Impact: The findings underline the transformative role of AI in addressing pressing nursing challenges such as staffing shortages, workload management, and error reduction. By supporting clinical decision‐making and workflow efficiency, AI can enhance patient safety, care quality, and nurses' capacity to focus on direct patient care. A stronger emphasis on research and implementation will help bridge usability and scalability gaps, ensuring sustainable integration of AI across diverse healthcare settings.

Objective: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement has been developed as a guideline for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Despite the prevalent use of the PRISMA statement in medicine and nursing, no studies have examined authors’ perception of it. The purpose of this study is to explore the perception of the PRISMA statement of authors who published reviews, meta-analyses, or both in nursing journals. Design: Cross-sectional descriptive study. Methods: An online survey was conducted among authors who published reviews, meta-analyses, or both in nursing journals between 2011 and 2017. The selected authors’ email addresses were extracted from the PUBMED database. A questionnaire—with a 10-point Likert scale (1— not important at all to 10— very important )—was developed to elicit their responses regarding their perception of not only the PRISMA statement as a whole, but also the individual items therein. Results: Invitations were sent to 1960 valid email addresses identified, with 230 responses (response rate: 11.7%) and 181 completed responses (completion rate: 9.2%). The average perceived importance of the PRISMA statement was 8.66 (SD=1.35), while the perceived importance for the individual items ranged from 7.74 to 9.32. Six items were rated significantly higher than the average rating, whereas one item was rated significantly lower. Conclusion: Most respondents perceived the PRISMA statement as important. Items related to information sources, selection, search-flow presentation, summary of findings, limitations and interpretation were deemed more important while the registration was deemed less so.