Dataset Information

Does the Regulatory Environment Affect Nurse Practitioners' Patterns of Practice or Quality of Care in Health Centers?

ABSTRACT: To examine the impact of state-granted nurse practitioner (NP) independence on patient-level quality, service utilization, and referrals.The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey's community health center (HC) subsample (2006-2011). Primary analyses included approximately 6,500 patient visits to 350 NPs in 220 HCs.Propensity score matching and multivariate regression analysis were used to estimate the impact of state-granted NP independence on each outcome, separately. Estimates were adjusted for sampling weights and NAMCS's complex design.Every "NP-patient visit unit" was isolated using practitioner and patient visit codes and, using geographic identifiers, assigned to its state-year and that state-year's level of NP independence based on scope of practice policies. Nine outcomes were specified using ICD-9 codes, standardized drug classification codes, and NAMCS survey items.After matching, no statistically significant differences in quality were detected by states' independence status, although NP visits in states with prescriptive independence received more educational services (aIRR 1.66; 95 percent CI 1.09-2.53; p = .02) and medications (aIRR 1.26; 95 percent CI 1.04-1.53; p = .02), and NP visits in states with practice independence had a higher odds of receiving physician referrals (AOR 1.88; 95 percent CI 1.10-3.22; p = .02) than those in restricted states.Findings do not support a quality-scope of practice relationship.

SUBMITTER: Kurtzman ET

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5269551 | biostudies-other | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does the Regulatory Environment Affect Nurse Practitioners' Patterns of Practice or Quality of Care in Health Centers?

Kurtzman Ellen T ET Barnow Burt S BS Johnson Jean E JE Simmens Samuel J SJ Infeld Donna Lind DL Mullan Fitzhugh F

Health services research 20170201

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the impact of state-granted nurse practitioner (NP) independence on patient-level quality, service utilization, and referrals.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey's community health center (HC) subsample (2006-2011). Primary analyses included approximately 6,500 patient visits to 350 NPs in 220 HCs.<h4>Study design</h4>Propensity score matching and multivariate regression analysis were used to estimate the impact of state-gra ...[more]

PMID: 28127773

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:ImportanceDespite the increasing involvement of advanced practice practitioners (APPs; ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in care delivery across specialties, the work patterns of APPs compared with physicians and how they are integrated into care teams have not been well characterized.ObjectiveTo characterize differences between physicians and APPs across specialty types related to days with appointments, visit types seen, and time spent using the electronic health record (EHR).Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide, cross-sectional study used EHR data from physicians and APPs (ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) at all US institutions that used Epic Systems' EHR between January and May 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to April 2023.Main outcomes and measuresAppointment scheduling patterns, percentage of new and established and level of evaluation and management (E/M) visits, and EHR use metrics per day and week.ResultsThe sample consisted of 217 924 clinicians across 389 organizations, including 174 939 physicians and 42 985 APPs. Although primary care physicians were more likely than APPs to have more than 3 days per week with appointments (50 921 physicians [79.5%] vs 17 095 APPs [77.9%]), this trend was reversed for medical (38 645 physicians [64.8%] vs 8124 APPs [74.0%]) and surgical (24 155 physicians [47.1%] vs 5198 APPs [51.7%]) specialties. Medical and surgical specialty physicians saw 6.7 and 7.4 percentage points, respectively, more new patient visits than did their APP counterparts, whereas primary care physicians saw 2.8 percentage points fewer new patient visits than did APPs. Physicians saw a greater percentage of level 4 or 5 visits across all specialties. Medical and surgical physicians spent 34.3 and 45.8 fewer minutes per day, respectively, using the EHR than did APPs in their specialties, whereas primary care physicians spent 17.7 minutes per day more. These differences translated to primary care physicians spending 96.3 minutes more per week using the EHR than APPs, whereas medical and surgical physicians spent 149.9 and 140.7 fewer minutes, respectively, than did their APP counterparts.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional, national study of clinicians found significant differences in visit and EHR patterns for physicians compared with APPs across specialty types. By underscoring the different current usage of physicians vs APPs across specialty types, this study helps place into context the work and visit patterns of physicians compared with APPs and serves as a foundation for evaluations of clinical outcomes and quality.

Project description:ObjectivesNurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs) increasingly practice in emergency departments (EDs), yet limited research has compared their practice patterns with those of physicians.Design, setting and participantsUsing nationally representative data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we analysed ED visits among NPs/PAs and physicians between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2017. To compare NP/PA and physician utilisation, we estimated propensity score-weighted multivariable regressions adjusted for clinical/sociodemographic variables, including triage acuity score (1=sickest/5=healthiest). Because NPs/PAs may preferentially consult physicians for more complex patients, we performed sensitivity analyses restricting to EDs with >95% of visits including the NP/PA-physician combination.ExposuresNPs/PAs.Main outcome measuresUse of hospitalisations, diagnostic tests, medications, procedures and six low-value services, for example, CT/MRI for uncomplicated headache, based on Choosing Wisely and other practice guidelines.ResultsBefore propensity weighting, we studied visits to 12 410 NPs/PAs-alone, 21 560 to the NP/PA-physician combination and 143 687 to physicians-alone who saw patients with increasing age (41, 45 and 47 years, p<0.001) and worsening triage acuity scores (3.03, 2.85 and 2.67, p<0.001), respectively. After weighting, NPs/PAs-alone used fewer medications (2.62 vs 2.80, p=0.002), diagnostic tests (3.77 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.67 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations (OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.46)) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.80)) than physicians. Contrastingly, the NP/PA-physician combination used more medications (3.08 vs 2.80, p<0.001), diagnostic tests (5.07 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.86 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.51) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 1.23 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.43)) than physicians-results were similar among EDs with >95% of NP/PA visits including the NP/PA-physician combination.Conclusions and relevanceWhile U.S. NPs/PAs-alone used less care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging, the NP/PA-physician combination used more care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging than physicians alone. Findings were reproduced among EDs where nearly all NP/PA visits were collaborative with physicians, suggesting that NPs/PAs seeing more complex patients used more services than physicians alone, but the converse might be true for more straightforward patients.

Dataset Information

Does the Regulatory Environment Affect Nurse Practitioners' Patterns of Practice or Quality of Care in Health Centers?

Publications

Does the Regulatory Environment Affect Nurse Practitioners' Patterns of Practice or Quality of Care in Health Centers?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets