scholarly journals Development and Assessment of an Artificial Intelligence–Based Tool for Skin Condition Diagnosis by Primary Care Physicians and Nurse Practitioners in Teledermatology Practices

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. e217249
Author(s):  
Ayush Jain ◽  
David Way ◽  
Vishakha Gupta ◽  
Yi Gao ◽  
Guilherme de Oliveira Marinho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Skin Condition ◽  
Condition Diagnosis

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychotropic Medications ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

Coordinated Primary Care (“Medical Home” Model)

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Petermann Garnica
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Medical Home ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Team Leaders ◽  
Care Nurse ◽  
Medical Home Model ◽  
Primary Care Practices ◽  
Primary Care Medical Home

Health care is inaccessible and too expensive for a large segment of the U.S. population. In addition, the past decade has produced many reports of significant problems related to safety, quality, and effectiveness in U.S. health care. The future of primary care is in question because of a current and projected worsening shortage of primary care physicians. A physician-led coordinated primary care model has been endorsed by major physicians groups as having the potential to address many of these problems. The model, also known as the “medical home,” has gained momentum and appears likely to play a central role as the nation moves forward to reform health care. Nurse practitioners have traditionally practiced “coordinated primary care” and are ideally suited to lead practices adopting this model of care. This article provides rationale for nurse practitioners to be fully recognized as team leaders of coordinated primary care practices.

Association of State-Level Restrictions in Nurse Practitioner Scope of Practice With the Quality of Primary Care Provided to Medicare Beneficiaries

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (5) ◽  
pp. 597-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Perloff ◽  
Sean Clarke ◽  
Catherine M. DesRoches ◽  
Monica O’Reilly-Jacob ◽  
Peter Buerhaus
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Nurse Practitioner ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Scope Of Practice ◽  
Care Nurse ◽  
State Regulations ◽  
Primary Care Nurse ◽  
Quality Of Primary Care

Context: State scope of practice (SoP) laws impose significant restrictions on the services that a nurse practitioner (NP) may provide in some states, yet evidence about SoP limitations on the quality of primary care is very limited. Method: This study uses six different classifications of state regulations and bivariate and multivariate analyses to compare beneficiaries attributed to primary care nurse practitioners and primary care physicians in 2013 testing two hypotheses: (1) chronic disease management, cancer screening, preventable hospitalizations, and adverse outcomes of care provided by primary care nurse practitioners are better in reduced and restricted practice states compared to states without restrictions and (2) by decreasing access to care, SoP restrictions negatively affect the quality of primary care. Findings: Results show a lack of consistent association between quality of primary care provided by NPs and state SoP restrictions. Conclusion: State regulations restricting NP SoP do not improve the quality of care.

scholarly journals Survivorship Care Focus Group Discussions for Breast Cancer Survivors and Primary Care Clinicians

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Hillary Klonoff-Cohen ◽  
Hillary Klonoff-Cohen ◽  
Mounika Polavarapu
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Late Effects ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Breast Cancer Survivors ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Psychological Consequences

Purpose: This is the first pilot study to examine survivors’ experiences and primary care physicians and nurse practitioners’ knowledge and behaviour practices with respect to late effects (e.g., fatigue, chemobrain, lymphodema, cardiac problems, reproductive, infertility and sexual health issues, bone problems, and pain). Methods: Two separate focus groups consisting of 5 breast cancer survivors and 5 primary care physicians and nurse practitioners recruited from a local hospital in Central Illinois answered predetermined questions about cancer survivorship care. We intentionally limited the sample in order to conduct a detailed discussion (90 minutes) to gain every participant’s perspective. Results: Breast cancer survivors expressed a void in discussion and lack of knowledge among their primary care physicians regarding late effects as well as psychological consequences, referrals to support groups, and availability of resources (e.g., finances), thereby negatively affecting survivors’ quality of life. A primary care clinician (PCC) focus group revealed a service gap for mental health services for all patients, knowledge deficit about late effects, and lack of awareness of patient resources. Both cancer survivors and PCCs were extremely supportive about a shared care survivorship model between oncology and primary care. All focus group participants were unequivocally receptive about enhancing survivorship care throughout a cancer survivor’s lifetime. Conclusion: Complementing cancer survivorship care with primary care clinicians in the areas of late effects, in addition to psychological consequences, screening, and lifestyle habits will enhance a cancer survivor’s health-related quality of life.

Primary Care and Physician Extenders in Affluent Countries

1977 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 545-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milton I. Roemer
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
Major Response ◽  
Urban And Rural Areas ◽  
Physician Extenders

The worldwide growth of specialization in medicine has led to a perceived shortage of primary care. A major response in the United States has been the training of physician extenders (both physician assistants and nurse practitioners). Other industrialized countries have rejected this approach, in favor of strengthening general medical practice through continuing education, provision of ancillary personnel, use of health centers, and by other methods. Developing countries use doctor-substitutes as a reasonable adjustment to their lack of economic resources. All countries use ancillary personnel for selected procedures, such as midwifery, which involve only limited judgment and decision making. The American strategy on use of doctor-substitutes for primary care, however, follows from unwillingness to train greater numbers of primary care physicians and to require them to serve in places of need. This results in an inequitable concentration of doctor-substitutes on service to the poor in both urban and rural areas.

Does primary care diabetes management provided to Medicare patients differ between primary care physicians and nurse practitioners?

2016 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
May Nawal Lutfiyya ◽  
Lisa Tomai ◽  
Bianca Frogner ◽  
Frank Cerra ◽  
Daniel Zismer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Medicare Patients
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document