Impact of State Nurse Practitioner Regulations on Potentially Inappropriate Medication Prescribing Between Physicians and Nurse Practitioners: A National Study in the United States.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The American Geriatrics Society regularly updates the Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) to improve prescribing safety.Purpose
This study assessed the impact of nurse practitioner (NP) practices on PIM prescribing across states in the United States and compared the change in PIM prescribing rates between 2016 and 2018.Methods
We used data from a random selection of 20% of Medicare beneficiaries (66 years or older) from 2015 to 2018 to perform multilevel logistic regression. A PIM prescription was classified as initial or refill on the basis of medication history 1 year before a visit. PIM use after an outpatient visit was the primary study outcome.Results
We included 9 000 224 visits in 2016 and 9 310 261 in 2018. The PIM prescription rate was lower in states with full NP practice and lower among NPs than among physicians; these rates for both physicians and NPs decreased from 2016 to 2018.Conclusions
Changes could be due to individual state practices.
SUBMITTER: Tzeng HM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8608008 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPotentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use is a risk factor for hospitalization and mortality. However, there were few studies focusing on the impact of provider type on PIM use.ObjectiveWe aimed to estimate the initial and refill PIM prescribing rate for physician visits and nurse practitioner (NP) visits and the impact of provider type on PIM prescribing.Research designWe used 100% Texas Medicare data to define physician visits and NP visits in 2016. The rate of visits with a PIM prescription from the same provider was measured, distinguishing between initial and refill prescription to estimate the PIM rate and adjusted odds ratio (OR) by provider type.ResultsThere were 24.1 per 1000 visits with a prescription for a PIM: 9.0 per 1000 visits for an initial PIM and 15.1 per 1000 visits for a refill PIM. A visit to an NP was less likely to result in an initial (OR = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-0.79) or refill (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.51-0.57) PIM. The association of lower odds of receiving a prescription for an initial PIM from an NP was substantially stronger among black enrollees than white enrollees (OR = 0.44, 95%CI = 0.30-0.65 for blacks and OR = 0.73, 95%CI = 0.68-0.78 for white enrollees). The association of an NP provider with lower odds of receiving a PIM refill was more pronounced in older patients and in those with more comorbidities.ConclusionsNPs prescribed fewer initial PIMs and were less likely to refill a PIM after an outpatient visit than physicians. The lower odds of receiving PIMs during an NP visit varied by age, race/ethnicity, rurality, and number of comorbidities.
| S-EPMC8273104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To measure the effect of nurse practitioner and pharmacist consultations on the appropriate use of medications by patients.We studied patients in the intervention arm of a randomized controlled trial. The main trial intervention was provision of multidisciplinary team care and the main outcome was quality and processes of care for chronic disease management.Patients were recruited from a single publicly funded family health network practice of 8 family physicians and associated staff serving 10 000 patients in a rural area near Ottawa, Ont.A total of 120 patients 50 years of age or older who were on the practice roster and who were considered by their family physicians to be at risk of experiencing adverse health outcomes.A pharmacist and 1 of 3 nurse practitioners visited each patient at his or her home, conducted a comprehensive medication review, and developed a tailored plan to optimize medication use. The plan was developed in consultation with the patient and the patient's doctor. We assessed medication appropriateness at the study baseline and again 12 to 18 months later.We used the medication appropriateness index to assess medication use. We examined associations between personal characteristics and inappropriate use at baseline and with improvements in medication use at the follow-up assessment. We recorded all drug problems encountered during the trial.At baseline, 27.2% of medications were inappropriate in some way and 77.7% of patients were receiving at least 1 medication that was inappropriate in some way. At the follow-up assessments these percentages had dropped to 8.9% and 38.6%, respectively (P < .001). Patient characteristics that were associated with receiving inappropriate medication at baseline were being older than 80 years of age (odds ratio [OR] = 5.00, 95% CI 1.19 to 20.50), receiving more than 4 medications (OR = 6.64, 95% CI 2.54 to 17.4), and not having a university-level education (OR = 4.55, 95% CI 1.69 to 12.50).We observed large improvements in the appropriate use of medications during this trial. This might provide a mechanism to explain some of the reductions in mortality and morbidity observed in other trials of counseling and advice provided by pharmacists and nurses.NCT00238836 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
| S-EPMC3418988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if there are differences in opioid prescribing among generalist physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) to Medicare Part D beneficiaries.DesignSerial cross-sectional analysis of prescription claims from 2013 to 2016 using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.SubjectsAll generalist physicians, NPs, and PAs who provided more than 10 total prescription claims between 2013 and 2016 were included. These prescribers were subsetted as practicing in a primary care, urgent care, or hospital-based setting.MethodsThe main outcomes were total opioid claims and opioid claims as a proportion of all claims in patients treated by these prescribers in each of the three settings of interest. Binomial regression was used to generate marginal estimates to allow comparison of the volume of claims by these prescribers with adjustment for practice setting, gender, years of practice, median income of the ZIP code, state fixed effects, and relevant interaction terms.ResultsThere were 36,999 generalist clinicians (physicians, NPs, and PAs) with at least one year of Part D prescription drug claims data between 2013 and 2016. The number of adjusted total opioid claims across these four years for physicians was 660 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 660-661), for NPs was 755 (95% CI = 753-757), and for PAs was 812 (95% CI = 811-814).ConclusionsWe find relatively high rates of opioid prescribing among NPs and PAs, especially at the upper margins. This suggests that well-designed interventions to improve the safety of NP and PA opioid prescribing, along with that of their physician colleagues, could be especially beneficial.
| S-EPMC6953344 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: Some medications may be dangerous for older patients. Potentially inappropriate medication prescribing (PIP) among older patients represents a significant cause of morbidity. The aim of this study was to create an algorithm to detect PIP in a geriatric database (Multidomain Alzheimer Preventive Trial (MAPT) study), and then to assess the algorithm construct validity by comparing the prevalence of PIP and associated factors with literature data. (2) Methods: An algorithm was constructed to detect PIP and was based on different explicit criteria among which the European list of potentially inappropriate medications (EU(7)-PIM), the STOPP and START version 2 tools. For construct validity assessment, logistic mixed-effects model repeated measures analyses were used to identify factors associated with PIP. (3) Results: Prevalence of PIP was 59.0% with the EU(7)-PIM list criteria, 43.2% with the STOPP criteria and 51.3% with the START criteria. Age, polypharmacy, and higher Charlson comorbidity index were associated with PIP. (4) Conclusions: Prevalence of PIP and associated factors are consistent with literature data, supporting the construct validity of our algorithm. This algorithm opens up interesting perspectives both in terms of analysis of very large databases and integration into e-prescribing or pharmaceutical validation software.
| S-EPMC8628967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To estimate the prevalence and determinants of the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older U.S. adults using the 2012 Beers criteria. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study in a random national sample of Medicare beneficiaries. SETTING:Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2007 to 2012. PARTICIPANTS:U.S. population aged 65 and older with Parts A, B, and D enrollment in at least 1 month during a calendar year (N = 38,250 individuals; 1,308,116 observations). MEASUREMENTS:The 2012 Beers criteria were used to estimate the prevalence of the use of PIMs in each calendar month and over a 12-month period using data on diagnoses or conditions present in the previous 12 months. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for the dependence of multiple monthly observations of a single person when estimating 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and logistic regression was used to identify independent determinants of PIM use. RESULTS:The point prevalence of the use of PIMs decreased from 37.6% (95% CI = 37.0-38.1) in 2007 to 34.2% (95% CI = 33.6-34.7) in 2012, with a statistically significant 2% (95% CI = 1-3%) decline per year assuming a linear trend. The 1-year period prevalence declined from 64.9% in 2007 to 56.6% in 2012. The strongest predictor of PIM use was the number of drugs dispensed. Individuals aged 70 and older and those seen by a geriatrician were less likely to receive a PIM. CONCLUSION:From 2007 to 2012, the prevalence of PIM use in older U.S. adults decreased according to the 2012 Beers criteria, although it remains high, still affecting one-third each month and more than half over 12 months. The number of dispensed prescriptions could be used to target future interventions.
| S-EPMC4843827 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInappropriate use of antibiotics promotes antibiotic resistance. Little is known about physician characteristics that may be associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Our objective was to assess whether physician knowledge, time in practice, place of training and practice volume explain the differences in antibiotic prescribing among physicians.MethodsA historical cohort of 852 primary care physicians in Quebec who became certified between 1990 and 1993 was followed for their first 6-9 years of practice (1990-1998). We evaluated whether inappropriate antibiotic prescribing had occurred during the study period (1990-1998) for viral (prescription of antibiotics) and bacterial (prescription of second-or third-line antibiotics given orally) infections. We used logistic regression to estimate the independent contributions of time in practice, practice volume, place of medical training and scores on licensure examinations. Physician sex and visit setting were controlled for, as were patient age, sex, education, income and geographic area of residence.ResultsA total of 104 230 patients who received a diagnosis of a viral infection and 65 304 who received a diagnosis of a bacterial infection were included in our study. International medical graduates were more likely than University of Montréal graduates to prescribe antibiotics for viral respiratory infections (risk ratio [RR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-2.44). Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing increased with time in practice. Physicians with a high practice volume were more likely than those with low practice volume to prescribe antibiotics for viral respiratory infections (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.48) and to prescribe second-and third-line antibiotics as first-line treatment (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.37). Physician scores on licensure examinations were not predictive of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.InterpretationInternational medical graduates, physicians with high-volume practices and those who were in practice longer were more likely to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. Developing effective interventions will require increased knowledge of the mechanisms that underlie these predictors of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.
| S-EPMC1995156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few comparisons exist of the quality of primary care provided by nurse practitioners (NPs) versus physicians.Patients with a diagnosis of diabetes in 2007-2010 (n=345,819) who received all primary care from NPs or from generalist physicians in a given year were selected from a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries. We compared the rate of potentially preventable hospitalizations among patients who received primary care from NPs versus generalist physicians. Various statistical methods-including multivariable analysis, inverse probability weighting of propensity score, nonpooling propensity score adjustment and matching, and instrumental variable (IV) analysis-were used to control for differences in patient characteristics between the 2 groups.Patients who received all of their primary care from NPs or from physicians differed by age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, residential area, and number of provider visits in the previous year. Nonpooling propensity score matching substantially reduced the differences, but neither IV approach satisfactorily reduced the differences. In multivariable analyses, receipt of primary care from an NP was associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization for potentially preventable conditions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93). Similar results were found using conditional logistic regression models with propensity methods. We found smaller reductions in our analyses of "other hospitalizations" (OR: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98). Both IV analyses showed associations between NP care and lower potentially preventable hospitalizations, but only 1 result was statistically significant.Using potentially preventable hospitalizations as a quality indicator, primary care provided by NPs was at least comparable with that provided by generalist physicians.
| S-EPMC4536572 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAdvanced practice providers in the outpatient setting play a key role in antibiotic stewardship, yet little is known about how to engage these providers in stewardship activities and what factors influence their antibiotic prescribing practices.MethodsWe used mixed methods to obtain data on practices and perceptions related to antibiotic prescribing by nurse practitioners (NP) and Veteran patients. We interviewed NPs working in the outpatient setting at one Veterans Affairs facility and conducted focus groups with Veterans. Emerging themes were mapped to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety framework. We examined NP antibiotic prescribing data from 2017 to 2019.ResultsWe interviewed NPs and conducted Veteran focus groups. Nurse practitioners reported satisfaction with resources, including ready access to pharmacists and infectious disease specialists. Building patient trust was reported as essential to prescribing confidence level. Veterans indicated the need to better understand differences between viral and bacterial infections. NP prescribing patterns revealed a decline in antibiotics prescribed for upper respiratory illnesses over a 3-year period.ConclusionOutpatient NPs focus on educating the patient while balancing organizational access challenges. Further research is needed to determine how to include both NPs and patients when implementing outpatient antibiotic stewardship strategies. Further research is also needed to understand factors associated with the decline in nurse practitioner antibiotic prescribing observed in this study.
| S-EPMC8366016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Health care policy-makers look for prescribing indicators at the population level to evaluate the performance of prescribers, improve quality and control drug costs. The aim of this research was to; (i) estimate the level of variation in potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) across prescribers in the national Irish older population using the STOPP criteria; (ii) estimate how reliably the criteria could distinguish between prescribers in terms of their proportion of PIP and; (iii) examine how PIP varies between prescribers and by patient and prescriber characteristics in a multilevel regression model. METHODS: 1,938 general practitioners (GPs) with 338,375 registered patients' ?70 years were extracted from the Health Service Executive Primary Care Reimbursement Service (HSE-PCRS) pharmacy claims database. HSE-PCRS prescriptions are WHO ATC coded. Demographic data for claimants' and prescribers' are available. Thirty STOPP indicators were applied to prescription claims in 2007. Multilevel logistic regression examined how PIP varied between prescribers and by individual patient and prescriber level variables. RESULTS: The unadjusted variation in PIP between prescribers was considerable (median 35%, IQR 30-40%). The STOPP criteria were reliable measures of PIP (average >0.8 reliability). The multilevel regression models found that only the patient level variable, number of different repeat drug classes was strongly associated with PIP (>2 drugs v none; adjusted OR, 4.0; 95% CI 3.7, 4.3). After adjustment for patient level variables the proportion of PIP varied fourfold (0.5 to 2 times the expected proportion) between prescribers but the majority of this variation was not significant. CONCLUSION: PIP is of concern for all prescribers. Interventions aimed at enhancing appropriateness of prescribing should target patients taking multiple medications.
| S-EPMC4021047 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) may contribute to opioid overdose. OBJECTIVE:To examine the association between PIP and adverse events. DESIGN:Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS:Three million seventy-eight thousand thirty-four individuals age ≥ 18, without disseminated cancer, who received prescription opioids between 2011 and 2015. MAIN MEASURES:We defined PIP as (a) morphine equivalent dose ≥ 100 mg/day in ≥ 3 months; (b) overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions in ≥ 3 months; (c) ≥ 4 opioid prescribers in any quarter; (d) ≥ 4 opioid-dispensing pharmacies in any quarter; (e) cash purchase of prescription opioids on ≥ 3 occasions; and (f) receipt of opioids in 3 consecutive months without a documented pain diagnosis. We used Cox proportional hazards models to identify PIP practices associated with non-fatal opioid overdose, fatal opioid overdose, and all-cause mortality, controlling for covariates. KEY RESULTS:All six types of PIP were associated with higher adjusted hazard for all-cause mortality, four of six with non-fatal overdose, and five of six with fatal overdose. Lacking a documented pain diagnosis was associated with non-fatal overdose (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.02-2.41), as was high-dose opioids (AHR 1.68, 95% CI 1.59-1.76). Co-prescription of benzodiazepines was associated with fatal overdose (AHR 4.23, 95% CI 3.85-4.65). High-dose opioids were associated with all-cause mortality (AHR 2.18, 95% CI 2.14-2.23), as was lacking a documented pain diagnosis (AHR 2.05, 95% CI 2.01-2.09). Compared to those who received opioids without PIP, the hazard for fatal opioid overdose with one, two, three, and ≥ four PIP subtypes were 4.24, 7.05, 10.28, and 12.99 (test of linear trend, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:PIP was associated with higher hazard for all-cause mortality, fatal overdose, and non-fatal overdose. Our study implies the possibility of creating a risk score incorporating multiple PIP subtypes, which could be displayed to prescribers in real time.
| S-EPMC6109008 | biostudies-other