Scope of practice of advanced practice providers (APP) in US community oncology.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6646-6646
Author(s):  
Andrew Klink ◽  
Bela Bapat ◽  
Yolaine Smith ◽  
Chadi Nabhan ◽  
Bruce A. Feinberg
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Scope Of Practice ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Bone Marrow Biopsies ◽  
Community Oncology ◽  
Eol Care

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.

A chemotherapy privileging process for advanced practice providers at an academic medical center

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-123
Author(s):  
Michelle A Carrasquillo ◽  
Tyler A Vest ◽  
Jill S Bates ◽  
Aimee Faso ◽  
Jessica Auten ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Training Process ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Oncology Practice

Purpose Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists are advanced practice providers who are highly trained and qualified healthcare professionals that can help support traditional demands on oncologists' increased time in direct patient care. The purpose of this study was to detail and assess the creation of a privileging process for this group of medical professionals within an academic medical center. Obtaining the designation of limited oncology practice provider (LOPP) gives the right to modify chemotherapy orders and to order supportive care medications. Methods An interdisciplinary team developed a comprehensive training process inclusive of required educational domains, knowledge goals, and educational activities to become an LOPP. In 2018, five years after the implementation of the privileging process, a survey was distributed to assess perceptions of the training process and integration of LOPPs within oncology practice. Results Most oncologists noted that working with LOPPs is beneficial to oncology practice (94%) and that they make modifying chemotherapy orders more efficient (87%). Greater than 82% of LOPPs also reported that their privileges streamline the chemotherapy process and make them feel valuable. Conclusion The creation of the LOPP designation is an effective way to integrate nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists within oncology practice. The inclusion of a focused privileging process ensures the safety of cancer care provided and has created a streamlined process for chemotherapy modifications and supportive care.

Role of advanced practice providers (APP) in meeting rising demands on oncology practices.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18372-e18372
Author(s):  
Bela Bapat ◽  
Yolaine Smith ◽  
Andrew Klink ◽  
Chadi Nabhan ◽  
Bruce A. Feinberg
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Patient Treatment ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Physician Burnout ◽  
Community Oncology ◽  
Practice Efficiency ◽  
Physician Availability

e18372 Background: The role of advanced practice providers (APPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), is expanding in oncology for myriad reasons including improving access to care by closing the gap between demand for services and physician availability. This is especially true in oncology, where the shortage of oncologists and increasingly cited physician burnout is creating challenges for many practices and communities. Methods: We surveyed US physicians to understand their practices’ use of APPs, their role in patient treatment and support as well as their impact on practice workflow. Data were collected using web-based instrument between Sep 2018 and Nov 2018. Responses have been summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Among 163 oncologists and hematologists surveyed, 74.2% (n = 121) employed NPs, 39.9% (n = 65) employed PAs, and 19.0% (n = 31) did not employ any APPs in their practice. Amongst practices that employed ≥1 APP (n = 132; 81.0%), over 40% of physicians reported a 1:3 APP: physician ratio. Most (62.1%) physicians stated that APPs only evaluated and saw returning patients, whereas 35.6% physicians used APPs to evaluate and see both new and return patients. More than 60% of physicians stated that APPs enhanced their practice efficiency, enabled physicians to focus more on complex patient cases, and made their workload manageable. By employing APPs, 52.3% of physicians were able to increase their patient caseload. The majority (57.6%) of physicians reported that they would employ more APPs in the next 3 years if resources were available, and 41.7% of physicians reported that APPs would likely take on additional responsibility in the next 3 years. Conclusions: Most community oncology practices in the US are employing APPs and are finding significant value in the APP roles by delegating various aspects of patient care to them. Most community practices are considering increasing the number of employed APPs and to expand the breadth of their responsibility. Integrating APPs into oncology practices is likely to have a larger impact on quality of patient care and potential mitigation of physician burnout.

Outcomes of Tube Thoracostomies Performed by Advanced Practice Providers vs Trauma Surgeons

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Insertion Site ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Trauma Surgeons

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.

Practice Model for Advanced Practice Providers in Oncology

2017 ◽  
pp. 40-43
Author(s):  
Jamie Cairo ◽  
Mary Ann Muzi ◽  
Deanna Ficke ◽  
Shaunta Ford-Pierce ◽  
Katrina Goetzke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Professional Growth ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Quality Improvements ◽  
Collaborative Relationships ◽  
Practice Model ◽  
Patients With Cancer

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.

Demonstrating the value of the oncology pharmacist within the healthcare team

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 1945-1967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eve M Segal ◽  
Jill Bates ◽  
Sara L Fleszar ◽  
Lisa M Holle ◽  
Julie Kennerly-Shah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Healthcare Team ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Care Outcomes

IntroductionAlthough many oncology pharmacists are embedded members within the healthcare team, data documenting their contributions to optimal patient outcomes are growing. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the value of the oncology pharmacist within the healthcare team and describe the knowledge, skills, and functions of the oncology pharmacist.MethodsA systematic literature review of articles that were published on PubMed between January 1951 and October 2018 was completed. Identified abstracts were reviewed and included if they focused on measuring the value or impact of the oncology pharmacist on provider/patient satisfaction, improvement of medication safety, improvement of quality/clinical care outcomes, economics, and intervention acceptance. Review articles, meta-analysis, and studies not evaluating oncology pharmacist activities were excluded. Studies were thematically coded into four themes (clinical care, patient education, informatics, and cost savings) by 10 oncology pharmacists.ResultsFour-hundred twenty-two articles were identified, in which 66 articles met inclusion criteria for this review. The selected literature included 27 interventional and 38 descriptive studies. The value of the oncology pharmacist was demonstrated by published articles in four key themes: clinical care, patient education, informatics, and cost savings.ConclusionWith an expected shortage of oncology physicians and the ongoing development of complex oncology therapies, the board-certified oncology pharmacist is well suited to serve as a physician extender alongside nurse practitioners and/or physician assistants as the medication expert on the oncology care team. The demonstrated value of the oncology pharmacist supports their role as frontline providers of patient care.

Efficient and Effective Models for Integrating Advanced Practice Professionals into Oncology Practice

2013 ◽  
pp. e377-e379
Author(s):  
Lawrence N. Shulman
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Practice Style ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
Effective Models

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.

How is KRAS testing associated with treatment and supportive care for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer? VA national assist project.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 64-64
Author(s):  
Aparna Raj Parikh ◽  
Benjamin Kim ◽  
Philip Pantoja ◽  
Diana M. Tisnado ◽  
Sangeeta C Ahluwalia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Care Processes ◽  
Systemic Treatments ◽  
Intensity Of Care ◽  
Type Mutant ◽  
Eol Care

64 Background: EGFR monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies improve quality of life and outcomes for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but only wild-type KRAS benefit from treatment. We evaluated KRAS testing and pharmacogenetic-guided treatment and supportive and end of life (EOL) care. Methods: Among a national random sample of 265 veterans diagnosed with mCRC in 2008 we evaluated KRAS testing, EGFR mAb therapy, supportive care using the Cancer Quality ASSIST indicators, and healthcare use. Three oncology nurses abstracted charts for care received 2008-2011. We linked chart to VA and Medicare administrative data and compared care received by KRAS testing and results. Results: 227/265 (85%) veterans died within 3 years and received an average of 48% of recommended supportive care processes. 96 / 265 (36%) underwent KRAS testing, of whom 41, 42, and 13 had wild-type, mutant, and indeterminant/unknown KRAS. 27/41 (66%) wild-type KRAS patients received an EGFR mAb; 18/45 (40%) patients receiving an EGFR mAb had mutant, indeterminant/unknown, or untested KRAS. KRAS testing was associated with increased systemic therapy but not differences in supportive care or intensity of care at the EOL. KRAS tested vs. not tested received hospice or palliative care (67 vs. 73%, p=0.55); any systemic therapy (96 vs. 40%, p<0.001) including new regimen in last month (0 vs. 6%); any chemotherapy in last 14 days of life (9 vs. 7%); and any acute care in last month of life (28 vs. 32%, p=0.78). Conclusions: KRAS testing was not performed for most veterans with mCRC in 2008, and EGFR mAb therapy was administered to many without wild-type KRAS. KRAS-tested patients were more likely to receive systemic treatments, and testing was not associated with greater intensity or inappropriate EOL care, and rates of such care were low among veterans.

Impact of advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) on surgical residents' critical care experience

2015 ◽  
Vol 199 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A. Kahn ◽  
Sarah A. Davis ◽  
Caroline T. Banes ◽  
Bradley M. Dennis ◽  
Addison K. May ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Care Experience ◽  
Surgical Residents

scholarly journals Follow-up of ischemic cardiopathy, an essential moment in the communication between in-patient and out-patient setting: problems and opportunities

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 169-179
Author(s):  
Italo Paolini
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Patient Education ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Critical Time ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Outpatient Setting ◽  
Pharmacological Therapy ◽  
Appropriate Treatment ◽  
Errors In Treatment

It is known that the transition from the inpatient to the outpatient setting is a critical time. Evidence suggests that contact between patients and providers (i.e., physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) during this interval may be crucial for appropriate treatment modifications and recognition of errors in treatment. Ambulatory follow-up provides opportunities for clinical assessment, patient education, and medication review, which may in turn improve outcomes. However, little is known about the appropriate timing and type of follow-up that is necessary following hospitalization for AMI. In Italian System of Heath contact between general pratictioner and specialists, after dicharge, is critical moment for management of chronic pharmacological and non pharmacological therapy. If professional approaches are not integrated can reduce patients compliance and effectiveness of therapies themselves. Good management of chronic cardiovascular disease requires attention to stenghtening the continuity of information and management of patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document