scholarly journals Oncology Advanced Practice Providers Chemotherapeutic Prescribing Practices

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1897-1897
Author(s):  
Bruce E Christensen ◽  
Corinne Bazany ◽  
Theresa Wittenberg ◽  
Alisha T DeTroye ◽  
Jennifer Reinhart ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Physician Assistants (PA) and Nurse Practitioners (NP), referred to as Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), are an integral part of cancer care today in community oncology (ONC) and academic institutions across the country. It has been shown, a team approach using APPs can extend the ONC workforce (PMID: 25009939). The need for ONC services will increase with the rise in cancer incidence and prevalence. As the rise continues, studies have shown ONC services will dramatically increase due to the predicted shortages of oncologists. Increasing the use of APPs is a viable solution to this shortage (PMID: 21037868). PAs and NPs have validated their value by safely prescribing chemotherapy (CT) as they provide cancer care. This value has been key for both patient and physician colleagues. The Association of Physician Assistants in Oncology (APAO) pursued research to better understand CT prescribing practices of ONC PAs. The focus was on whether or not PAs were allowed to prescribe CT drugs in their day to day practice. Methods: A survey was used to collect data. The survey focused on APPs scope of practice to include prescribing CT independently (IND) or were there restrictions by the state or organizations they are employed by. For those allowed to prescribe CT, further questions regarding training programs and time periods to demonstrate competency were asked. The survey also viewed physician and employer attitudes towards APPs prescribing CT. The survey was sent in January 2021 to 1307 APAO members via email with a 30-day collection period. Eleven percent were returned (N=149). Results: Respondents (R) were PAs, 95%, NPs, 3% and other 1%. The majority of R worked in Hematology/Medical ONC, 87%, with fewer in Surgical ONC 6%, Radiation ONC 1%, other 6%. R came from 34 states with the largest number representing Texas, 13%, New York 12%, Pennsylvania, 8%, North Carolina,7%, Massachusetts 6% and Florida 5%. Most of the R had been in ONC for 1-8 years (y) (59%), followed by 9-16 y (21%), 17-24 y (16%), and 25+ y (3%). The survey was divided into two arms, those who could IND sign CT orders and those who could not IND sign CT orders. The survey demonstrated 44% of the R were able to IND sign CT orders and 56 % of the R could not. With regard to work setting, 60% of R in this arm worked in academic ONC centers and 35% worked in community ONC centers. Also in this arm, 23% were only allowed to sign existing CT plans that did not require modification and 77% were not. The majority of R could sign existing CT orders (89%) and fewer could initiate and sign new CT orders (35%). Most R were able to prescribe intravenous and oral medication (98%), while fewer could prescribe intrathecal 34%) and clinical trial medications (49%). Of the R in the second arm, 74% worked at academic ONC centers and 19% worked at community ONC practices. When asked if their state medical board prohibited prescribing CT, the majority (77%) reported this was not the case, then if their institution/facilities prohibited prescribing CT, the majority (69%) reported this was true. To explore physician/employer attitudes, a question was posed to ask the APP if their physicians believe that limiting CT to physicians is a safety measure. Responses were mixed, 36% reporting this is true, 33% reporting this was false and 31% as unsure. Next, the APPs were asked if their physicians believed experienced APPs should be allowed to prescribe CT. Again, responses were mixed, 44% agreeing, while 11% disagreeing. Finally, 44% were unsure. When asked if their employer believed limiting CT to physicians is an important safety measure, 47% of the R reported this is true, 19% R reported this is false and 34% were unsure. When asked if their employer believed experienced APPs should be allowed to prescribe CT, 30% of the R reported this is true, 20% R report this is false and 49% were unsure. Conclusion: CT prescribing privileges, are not universal for APPs and the reason for inconsistencies in prescribing CT is not clear. This survey provided insight to the wide range of prescribing practices throughout the US based on ONC settings, geographic regions, and experience of the APP. As APPs are valued team members in extending the ONC workforce, and prescribing CT is a common practice in cancer care which APPs participate in. This would seem worthy of further research to understand the reasons why such discrepancies exist. Disclosures Diaz Duque: Morphosys: Speakers Bureau; Hutchinson Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; ADCT: Consultancy.

Author(s):  
Heather M. Hylton ◽  
G. Lita Smith

Although significant progress has been made in cancer care, access to coordinated, high-quality care across the cancer care continuum remains a challenge for many patients. With significant workforce shortages in oncology anticipated, physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs)—known collectively as advanced practice providers (APPs)—are considered to be a part of the solution to bridging the gap between the supply of and demand for oncology services. APPs are integral to the provision of team-based care in oncology, and optimizing the roles of all members of the patient’s care team is vital to ensuring the teams are cost-effective and that each team member is performing at the functional level intended. Studies have shown significant patient, physician, and APP satisfaction with collaborative care models, and APPs are well positioned to enhance value for patients in the oncology setting. Understanding the full scope of APP impact can be challenging as it extends well beyond direct patient care. As rapid progress in cancer care continues, innovative approaches to care delivery will be necessary to ensure patients’ access. Effective oncologist–APP partnerships will be key to providing optimal, value-centered care to patients.


Author(s):  
Michael P. Kosty ◽  
Anupama Kurup Acheson ◽  
Eric D. Tetzlaff

The clinical practice of oncology has become increasingly complex. An explosion of medical knowledge, increased demands on provider time, and involved patients have changed the way many oncologists practice. What was an acceptable practice model in the past may now be relatively inefficient. This review covers three areas that address these changes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Oncology Census defines who the U.S. oncology community is, and their perceptions of how practice patterns may be changing. The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-ASCO Teams in Cancer Care Project explores how best to employ team science to improve the efficiency and quality of cancer care in the United States. Finally, how physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) might be best integrated into team-based care in oncology and the barriers to integration are reviewed.


2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura C. Bevis ◽  
Gina M. Berg-Copas ◽  
Bruce W. Thomas ◽  
Donald G. Vasquez ◽  
Ruth Wetta-Hall ◽  
...  

Background The role of advanced registered nurse practitioners and physician assistants in emergency departments, trauma centers, and critical care is becoming more widely accepted. These personnel, collectively known as advanced practice providers, expand physicians’ capabilities and are being increasingly recruited to provide care and perform invasive procedures that were previously performed exclusively by physicians. Objectives To determine whether the quality of tube thoracostomies performed by advanced practice providers is comparable to that performed by trauma surgeons and to ascertain whether the complication rates attributable to tube thoracostomies differ on the basis of who performed the procedure. Methods Retrospective blinded reviews of patients’ charts and radiographs were conducted to determine differences in quality indicators, complications, and outcomes of tube thoracostomies by practitioner type: trauma surgeons vs advanced practice providers. Results Differences between practitioner type in insertion complications, complications requiring additional interventions, hospital length of stay, and morbidity were not significant. The only significant difference was a complication related to placement of the tube: when the tube extended caudad, toward the feet, from the insertion site. Interrater reliability ranged from good to very good. Conclusions Use of advanced practice providers provides consistent and quality tube thoracostomies. Employment of these practitioners may be a safe and reasonable solution for staffing trauma centers.


Author(s):  
Jamie Cairo ◽  
Mary Ann Muzi ◽  
Deanna Ficke ◽  
Shaunta Ford-Pierce ◽  
Katrina Goetzke ◽  
...  

According to ASCO, the number of practicing oncologists has remained stable despite growth demands, leading to an overall shortage in many areas of the country. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are advanced practice providers (APPs) who can assist in the provision of support and care to patients with cancer, but the role of the APP in the oncology setting has not been well defined. There exists a variety of different practice patterns for APPs who work in oncology, and the lack of role definition and absence of an established practice model are considered leading causes of APP attrition. According to the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, it has been well demonstrated that, when nurse practitioners are allowed to work to the full scope of their education and preparation, there are notable cost reductions and quality improvements in patient care. The focus of APP education and training is on health promotion, disease prevention, and primary care medical management, but most APPs have limited exposure to management of cancer in patients. With this in mind, Aurora Cancer Care developed a practice model for APPs who work in oncology. The goal of the model is to enhance the quality of care delivered to patients and provide a stimulating work environment that fosters excellent collaborative relationships with oncologist colleagues, supports professional growth, and allows APPs to practice to the full extent of their licensure.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Fisher, PhD, RN, PPCNP-BC ◽  
Suzanne W. Ameringer, PhD, RN

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the current opioid tapering practice.Design: Cross-sectional, online, survey research.Participants: Pediatric healthcare providers from a national sample of practicing nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians who participate in five different pediatric pain and/or palliative care list serves.Results: One hundred four participants responded to the survey. The respondents were predominantly physicians (n = 58, 62 percent). The majority of respondents worked in an academic children's medical center (n = 50, 52 percent). The average number of years in pediatric practice was 16 (mean = 16.33, range of 0-45 years). Of the 104 respondents, only 22 (27 percent) had a written protocol for opioid tapering. Use of expert consultants such as pharmacists or pediatric pain management teams varied. The majority of respondents (n = 46, 44 percent) seldom or never consult a pharmacist. Only 22 percent (n = 17) almost always or always consult a pediatric pain team. There was a wide range of personal tapering rate preferences. Conclusions: This study provided a baseline assessment of pediatric opioid tapering practices by pediatric healthcare providers. Results revealed a marked variation in practice patterns that may indicate deficits in the assessment and management of opioid withdrawal in children. The need for the development of assessment-based opioid tapering guidelines for the pediatric population is long overdue.


Author(s):  
Lawrence N. Shulman

Advanced practice professionals (APP), primarily nurse practitioners and physician assistants, are increasingly being integrated into oncology practices. The reasons are numerous, and models of care options are numerous as well. Models of care have developed without much forethought and are often the result of the relative interests of the physician, the APP, and the mutual “comfort” of practice style. The increasing complexity of oncology care, the pressures of the health care crisis and health care reform mean that it is necessary that we examine models of collaborative care in terms of both quality of care and productivity.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6646-6646
Author(s):  
Andrew Klink ◽  
Bela Bapat ◽  
Yolaine Smith ◽  
Chadi Nabhan ◽  
Bruce A. Feinberg

6646 Background: Oncology practices are increasingly employing nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) known collectively as advanced practice providers (APPs) to improve practice workflow, increase efficiency, and enable physicians to focus on complex patient care. Understanding variations in scope of practice for APPs may help establish a benchmark against which future changes are measured. Methods: US community physicians responded to a web-based survey from Sep to Nov 2018. Physicians were asked how frequently their APPs performed certain tasks on a 5-point scale (i.e., never, occasionally, sometimes, frequently, and always). Responses have been summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: In this study, 163 physicians were surveyed, most (81.0%, n = 132) used APPs in their practice. Among physicians using APPs, 91.7% (n = 121) used NPs and 49.2% (n = 65) used PAs. Most physicians stated that APPs were frequently/always involved in providing patient education (84.1%), ordering imaging and laboratory studies (68.9%), and/or making supportive care decisions (62.1%). Over 85% (57.6%-59.8% occasionally/sometimes; 28.0%-28.8% frequently/always) of physicians agreed that APPs discussed imaging reports and end of life (EOL) care (57.6% occasionally/sometimes, 28.8% frequently/always) with patients. Regarding procedures: 51.9% (28.0% occasionally/sometimes; 24.1% frequently/always) responded that APPs performed bone marrow biopsies and intrathecal chemotherapy. Regarding systemic therapy: 68.2% (58.3% occasionally/ sometimes; 9.8% frequently) allowed APPs to modify existing regimen e.g., dose/schedule change; 39.4% responded that APPs made decisions about new therapy selection. Conclusions: While substantial variation in the role of APPs in community oncology practices was observed, similar themes emerged. APPs appear to be integral in patient education, ordering laboratory and imaging studies, and discussing EOL care. Fewer are involved in managing and selecting supportive care and systemic therapy. Longitudinal and longer follow up are warranted to ascertain whether the scope of these practices change over time.


2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 188-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori A. Buswell ◽  
Patricia Reid Ponte ◽  
Lawrence N. Shulman

Physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants often work in teams to deliver cancer care in ambulatory oncology practices. This is likely to become more prevalent as the demand for oncology services rises, and the number of providers increases only slightly.


2015 ◽  
Vol 199 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A. Kahn ◽  
Sarah A. Davis ◽  
Caroline T. Banes ◽  
Bradley M. Dennis ◽  
Addison K. May ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document