Do governing body and CSU nurses on clinical commissioning groups really lead a nursing agenda? Findings from a 2015 Survey of the Commissioning Nurse Leaders' Network Membership.

Aims: This paper reports the findings from a 2015 survey of the Commissioning Nurse Leaders' Network. Our aim was to understand how governing body nurses perceive their influence and leadership on clinical commissioning groups.

Methods: An online survey method was used with a census sample of 238 governing body nurses and nurses working in Commissioning Support Units, who were members of the Commissioning Nurse Leaders' Network.

Nurses' experiences of clinical commissioning group boards.

Aim To explore the experience of governing body nurses appointed to clinical commissioning group (CCG) boards; how they perform their responsibilities; and their perceived effectiveness in ensuring safe, patient-centred care and the factors that influence their effectiveness. Method This was a small pilot study using a mixed methods approach. There were four phases of the study: literature review, qualitative data collection (interviews), quantitative data collection (survey), and final data analysis.

Are senior nurses on Clinical Commissioning Groups in England inadvertently supporting the devaluation of their profession?: A critical integrative review of the literature.

In this study, we discuss the role of senior nurses who sit on clinical commissioning groups that now plan and procure most health services in England. These nurses are expected to bring a nursing view to all aspects of clinical commissioning group business. The role is a senior level appointment and requires experience of strategic commissioning.

Ethical research with participants who are deaf.

When conducting research with participants who are deaf there is a range of potential issues to be considered: issues relating to language and communication, participants' past experience and culture, and the potential power imbalance between researcher and participant. From an ethical perspective these may compromise informed consent and confidentiality, may inadvertently result in deception and may interfere with the validity of the data. The consequences may be negative for both the deaf population and the research community.