Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 26 October 2005
- Published on: 26 October 2005
- Published on: 29 September 2005
- Published on: 26 October 2005Comparison between nurses and SHOs is misleadingShow More
Dear Editor,
Ezra et al.’s paper[1] comparing Emergency Nurse Practioners (ENP) and Senior House Officers (SHO) ophthalmic examination and diagnosis demonstrates that experienced nurses given specific training can assess ophthalmic injuries. To those who work with ENPs this should come as no surprise. However the comparison with junior medical staff could lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn.
It is...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 26 October 2005ENP-exclusive eye emergencies?Show More
Dear Editor,
The study by Ezra et al. found that Emergency Nurse Practitioners, presumably with several years’ experience and with specific training for several sessions in an ophthalmology clinic, were more accurate at ophthalmic assessment than SHOs, presumably with a few months’ experience and specific training in one short seminar. Comparison data for middle grades and consultants was not included. Nor was re...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 29 September 2005Roles for Emergency Nurse PractitionersShow More
Dear Editor,
Emergency Nurse Practitioners are an invaluable part of any Emergency Department. However in the abstract in the EMJ, the study by Ezra et al. does not account for differences in the ophthalmological training between the ENP and SHO cohorts, giving a erroneous impression.
As the authors point out in their conclusions, there are marked differences between the training of these two groups. Ophtha...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.