LAUSR

In 2015, the Fellows of the AANP (FAANP) convened the 2015 NP Research Agenda Roundtable to review and recommend updates from the 2010 NP Research Agenda Roundtable. Compared with the 2010 Roundtable, the 2015 discussants focused more broadly on fundamental needs for data and research relevant to NPs and their practices, and to account for potential and possibly unforeseen changes within four categories: policy and regulation, practice models, education, and workforce. Within each of the broad categories addressed by the Research Agenda, there were three priorities, or areas of research, recommended. Each specified priority included the potential for several subcomponents. The following table summarizes the three priorities discussants identified within each of the categories addressed (Roberts & Goolsby, 2017). As the coordinators of both Roundtable meetings, we are honored now to serve as the guest editors for this issue of JAANP, in which four teams report findings of scoping reviews addressing specific priorities set by the FAANP Agenda. The articles represent the work of several AANP Research Committee volunteer members. The collection substantiates research that exists and research that is lacking on at least one focus area within each of the four categories. The priorities addressed by the four reviews published in this issue are highlighted in Table 1. As guest editors, we will comment on each article, how it addresses a part of the 2015 Research Agenda and additional areas of research needed. We encourage readers to reflect on all four of the reviews after reading the introductory article describing the general process used by the committee. We hope that this issue will inspire additional work. NP practice models Litchman, Schlepko, Rowley, McFarland, and Flanders describe the results of a scoping review and gap analysis to examine outcomes and concepts related to the 2008 APRN Consensus Model. They found several implications and consequences (anticipated and unanticipated) for NPs related to implementation of the Consensus Model. The review addresses the efforts toward implementation and related outcomes, through both data-based and opinion articles. Although full implementation of the Consensus Model by 2015 was recommended, this goal is far from being realized. With literature selected from 2008 to 2017, the analysis covers research conducted just before publication of the Consensus Model through a periodwhere implementation was still being discussed in several states. This scoping review and analysis provides a commendable summary of the literature related to implementation of the Consensus Model. Although the authors acknowledge the difficulty in researching the implementation of a process across diverse states, their findings support the need for further exploration of the long-reaching influence associated with this important regulatory model as it relates to NP practice and outcomes, such as access to care. There will be an ongoing need for this research as further implementation occurs and outcomes become available. Beyond investigation of the Consensus Model outcomes, research on the outcomes associated with institutional policies and emerging practice models is needed. Common variations in NP scope of practice relate to institutional policies and procedures on issues, such as those guiding provider privileging and payer credentialing of NPs, regardless of the state’s authorized scope of practice procedures. Similarly, as emerging practice models such as retail health and telehealth becomemore common, we need to understand how, if at all, outcomes vary based on the model of practice used.