Dataset Information

Scope-of-Practice for Nurse Practitioners and Adherence to Medications for Chronic Illness in Primary Care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nonadherence to medications is costly and improving adherence is difficult, requiring multifactorial solutions, including policy solutions.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of one policy strategy on medication adherence. Specifically, we examine the effect on adherence of expanding scope-of-practice regulations for nurse practitioners (NPs) to practice and prescribe without physician supervision.

Design

We conducted three difference-in-difference multivariable analyses of commercial insurance claims.

Participants

Patients who filled at least two prescriptions in one of three chronic therapeutic medications: anti-diabetics (n = 514,255), renin angiotensin system antagonists (RASA) (n = 1,679,957), and anti-lipidemics (n = 1,613,692).

Main measures

Medication adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC). We used one continuous (PDC 0-1) and one binary outcome (PDC of > .8), the latter indicating good adherence.

Key results

Patients taking anti-diabetic medications had a 1.9 percentage point higher medication adherence rate (p < 0.05) and a 2.7 percentage point higher probability of good adherence (p < 0.001) in states that expanded NP scope-of-practice. Medication adherence for patients taking RASA was higher by 2.3 percentage points (p < 0.001) and 3.4 percentage points (p < 0.01) for both measures, respectively. Patients taking anti-lipidemics saw a smaller, but statistically insignificant, improvement in adherence.

Conclusions

Results indicate that scope-of-practice regulations that allow NPs to practice and prescribe without physician oversight are associated with improved medication adherence. We postulate that the mechanism for this effect is increased access to health care services, which in turn increases access to prescriptions. Our results suggest that policies allowing NPs to maximally use their skills can be beneficial to patients.

SUBMITTER: Muench U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7878646 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis integrative review synthesises research studies that have investigated the perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in primary health care. The aggregation of evidence on barriers and facilitators to working collaboratively and experiences about the processes of collaboration is of value to understand success factors and factors that impede collaborative working relationships.MethodsAn integrative review, which used systematic review processes, was undertaken to summarise qualitative and quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2012. Databases searched were the Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Informit and ProQuest. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Study findings were extracted relating to a) barriers and facilitators to collaborative working and b) views and experiences about the process of collaboration. The findings were narratively synthesised, supported by tabulation.Results27 studies conducted in seven different countries met the inclusion criteria. Content analysis identified a number of barriers and facilitators of collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners. By means of data comparison five themes were developed in relation to perceptions and understanding of collaboration. Nurse practitioners and medical practitioners have differing views on the essentials of collaboration and on supervision and autonomous nurse practitioner practice. Medical practitioners who have a working experience with NPs express more positive attitudes towards collaboration. Both professional groups report concerns and negative experiences with collaborative practice but also value certain advantages of collaboration.ConclusionsThe review shows that working in collaboration is a slow progression. Exposure to working together helps to overcome professional hurdles, dispel concerns and provide clarity around roles and the meaning of collaboration of NPs and MPs. Guidelines on liability and better funding strategies are necessary to facilitate collaborative practice whether barriers lie in individual behaviours or in broader policies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care is facing a multimorbid, ageing population and a lack of general practitioners (GPs), especially in rural areas. In many countries, advanced practice nurses (APNs) may be a potential solution for these challenges. Switzerland, however, is in the early stages of APN role development with a handful of pilot projects that are unresearched. Our aim was to explore the experiences of APNs and GPs involved in introducing the APN role to Swiss primary care. METHODS:We organised two focus group discussions with APNs (n =?9) engaged in primary care across German-speaking Switzerland and individual interviews with APNs (n =?2) and GPs (n =?4) from two pilot projects in remote areas. Data analysis followed an exploratory hybrid approach of thematic analysis and was guided by the PEPPA Plus framework. RESULTS:The analysis resulted in five main themes: The participants considered themselves pioneers developing a new model in primary care, seeking to shape and improve future health care ((1) pioneering spirit). Both nurses and doctors agreed on the additional value of the APN role, a role seen as having more time for and a different approach to patient care, bringing higher quality of care and flexibility to the practice ((2) added value from the APN role). Participants also emphasized the importance of asking for advice when unsure about diagnostic steps or appropriate treatment ((3) awareness of limited knowledge and skills). The main barriers identified included the impression that Swiss doctors have little knowledge about nurses in advanced roles ((4) GP's lack of knowledge regarding the APN role), and that further regulations will be important to foster role clarity and accountability ((5) political and legal obstacles in introducing the APN role). CONCLUSIONS:The early phase of introducing APNs to Swiss primary care is characterised by heterogeneous, small-scale projects of pioneering GPs and APNs recognising the added value and limits of APNs despite a lack of governance and knowledge regarding the APN role among GPs. Experiences gained from ongoing projects provide elements of good practice for political discussions and regulations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Little is known as to whether primary care teams' perceptions of how well they have implemented the Chronic Care Model (CCM) corresponds with their patients' own experience of chronic illness care. We examined the extent to which practice members' perceptions of how well they organized to deliver care consistent with the CCM were associated with their patients' perceptions of the chronic illness care they have received. METHODS:Analysis of baseline measures from a cluster randomized controlled trial testing a practice facilitation intervention to implement the CCM in small, community-based primary care practices. All practice "members" (i.e., physician providers, non-physician providers, and staff) completed the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) survey and adult patients with 1 or more chronic illnesses completed the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire. RESULTS:Two sets of hierarchical linear regression models accounting for nesting of practice members (N = 283) and patients (N = 1,769) within 39 practices assessed the association between practice member perspectives of CCM implementation (ACIC scores) and patients' perspectives of CCM (PACIC). ACIC summary score was not significantly associated with PACIC summary score or most of PACIC subscale scores, but four of the ACIC subscales [Self-management Support (p < 0.05); Community Linkages (p < 0.02), Delivery System Design (p < 0.02), and Organizational Support (p < 0.02)] were consistently associated with PACIC summary score and the majority of PACIC subscale scores after controlling for patient characteristics. The magnitude of the coefficients, however, indicates that the level of association is weak. CONCLUSIONS:The ACIC and PACIC scales appear to provide complementary and relatively unique assessments of how well clinical services are aligned with the CCM. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing both patient and practice member perspectives when evaluating quality of chronic illness care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT00482768.