Leadership in Maintaining Standards for the APN Role

Part of the Advanced Practice in Nursing book series (APN)


The academy for advanced practice nursing is tasked with training highly qualified nurse practitioners (NP). Initially, the most crucial cornerstones to obtain this goal seem to be the development of documents describing (1) the role of the NP, (2) education and testing, (3) the requirements imposed on academics, and (4) the quality system. Having a vision and plan for how you want to obtain your goals, however, does not necessarily mean that these goals will be obtained. The addition of cornerstones facilitating the intrinsic motivation of academics is necessary to let them do what they are expert in. These cornerstones should increase accountability, ownership, and involvement in decision-making. A supportive learning environment, as well as coaching and empowerment by means of servant leadership are necessary cornerstones to graduate highly qualified NPs.


Academic culture Servant leadership Professional autonomy Learning environment 


  1. Adler P, Kwon S. The mutation of professionalism as a contested diffusion process: clinical guidelines as carriers of institutional change in medicine. J Manage Stud. 2013;50:930–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew N. Professional identity in nursing: are we there yet? Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32:846–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyris C, Schon D. Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. 1st ed. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass; 1974.Google Scholar
  4. Azer S, Guerrero A, Walsh A. Enhancing learning approaches: practical tips for students and teachers. Med Teach. 2013;35:433–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benner P. From novice to expert. Am J Nurs. 1982;82:402–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bickenbach J, Cieza A, Rauch A, Stucki G. ICF core sets: manual for clinical practice. 10th ed. Gottingen: Hogrefe Publishing; 2012.Google Scholar
  7. Deci E, Ryan R. Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol. 2008;49:182–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dierendonck v D. Servant leadership: a review and synthesis. J Manage. 2011;37:1228–61.Google Scholar
  9. Guest C, Regehr G, Tiberius RG. The life long challenge of expertise. Med Educ. 2001;35:78–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hastings S, Armitage G, Mallinson S, Jackson K, Suter E. Exploring the relationship between governance mechanisms in healthcare and health workforce outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77:81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henderson V. Basic principles of nursing care. New York: American Nurses Publishing; 1960.Google Scholar
  13. Horwitz S, Horwitz I. The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analytic review of team demography. J Manage. 2007;33:978–1011.Google Scholar
  14. Judge T, Bono J, Ilies R, Gerhardt M. Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87:765–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin books; 2012.Google Scholar
  16. Maudsley G, Strivens J. Promoting professional knowledge, experiential learning and critical thinking for medical students. Med Educ. 2000;34:534–44.Google Scholar
  17. Mintzberg H. Structure in fives: designing effective organizations. Cranbury: Pearson Education. 1993.Google Scholar
  18. Mlodinow L. How your unconscious mind rules your behavior. New York: Pantheon/Random House; 2012.Google Scholar
  19. Moonen-van Loon J, Overeem K, Donkers H, van der Vleuten C, Driessen E. Composite reliability of a workplace-based assessment toolbox for postgraduate medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2013;18:1087–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Müller R, Turner R. Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers. Int J Proj Manag. 2010;28:437–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nathan E, Mulyadi B, Sen S, van Dierendonckd D, Lidene R. Servant leadership: a systematic review and call for future research. Leadersh Q. 2019;30:111–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Porter-O’Grady T. Principles for sustaining shared/professional governance in nursing. Nurs Manage. 2019;50:36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C. General overview of the theories used in assessment: AMEE Guide No. 57. Med Teach. 2011a;33:783–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schuwirth L, Van der Vleuten C. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011b;33:478–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simon S. Start with Why: how great leaders inspire everyone to take action. London: Penguin UK; 2013.Google Scholar
  26. Sinek S. Start with why: how great leaders inspire everyone to take action. London: Penguin Books; 2011.Google Scholar
  27. Smith S, Hayes S, Shea P. Critical review of the use of Wenger’s Community of Practice (CoP) theoretical framework in online and blended learning research, 2000-2014. Online Learn. 2017;21:209–37.Google Scholar
  28. Stewart G. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. J Manage. 2006;32:29–55.Google Scholar
  29. Stone A, Russel R, Patterson K. Transformational versus servant leadership: a difference in leader focus. Leadersh Org Dev J. 2003;25:349–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swihart D, Porter-O’Grady T. Shared governance: a practical approach to reshaping professional nursing practice. Middleton: Hcpro Inc.; 2006.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor D, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE guide No. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1561–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weggemans M. Leading professionals? Don’t! Amsterdam: Warden Press; 2014.Google Scholar
  33. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children & Youth Version, ICG-CY. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.Google Scholar
  34. Woods A, Cashin A, Stockhausen L. Communities of practice and the construction of the professional identities of nurse educators: a review of the literature. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;37:164–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yeh S, Yuan K, Chen S, Lo Y, Chou H, Huang S, et al. The moderating effect of leadership on the relationship between personality and performance. J Nurs Manag. 2016;24:869–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Young J, van Merrienboer J, Durning S, ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Med Teach. 2014;36:371–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Master Advanced Nursing Practice & Department Innovation in the CareHAN University Applied SciencesNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations