scholarly journals Comparison of Resident, Advanced Practice Clinician, and Hospitalist Teams in an Academic Medical Center: Association with Clinical Outcomes and Resource Utilization

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 709-715
Author(s):  
Stacy A JOhnson ◽  
Claire E Ciarkowski ◽  
Katie L Lappe ◽  
David R Kendrick ◽  
Adrienne Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Resource Utilization ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Total Direct Cost ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Interhospital Transfer ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Inpatient Medicine

BACKGROUND: Academic medical centers have expanded their inpatient medicine services with advanced practice clinicians (APCs) or nonteaching hospitalists in response to patient volumes, residency work hour restrictions, and recently, COVID-19. Reports of clinical outcomes, cost, and resource utilization differ among inpatient team structures. OBJECTIVE: Directly compare outcomes among resident, APC, and solo hospitalist inpatient general medicine teams. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using multivariable analysis adjusted for time of admission, interhospital transfer, and comorbidities that compares clinical outcomes, cost, and resource utilization. SUBJECTS: Patients 18 years or older discharged from an inpatient medicine service between July 2015 and July 2018 (N = 12,716). MAIN MEASURES: Length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, inpatient mortality, normalized total direct cost, discharge time, and consultation utilization. KEY RESULTS: Resident teams admitted fewer patients at night (32.0%; P < .001) than did APC (49.5%) and hospitalist (48.6%) teams. APCs received nearly 4% more outside transfer patients (P = .015). Hospitalists discharged patients 26 minutes earlier than did residents (mean hours after midnight [95% CI], 14.58 [14.44-14.72] vs 15.02 [14.97-15.08]). Adjusted consult utilization was 15% higher for APCs (adjusted mean consults per admission [95% CI], 1.00 [0.96-1.03]) and 8% higher for residents (0.93 [0.90-0.95]) than it was for hospitalists (0.85 [0.80-0.90]). No differences in LOS, readmission, mortality, or cost were observed between the teams. CONCLUSION: We observed similar costs, LOS, 30-day readmission, and mortality among hospitalist, APC, and resident teams. Our results suggest clinical outcomes are not significantly affected by team structure. The addition of APC or hospitalist teams represent safe and effective alternatives to traditional inpatient resident teams.

scholarly journals Major Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes of Total Spine MRI Performed in the Emergency Department at a Major Academic Medical Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1120-1125
Author(s):  
C.W.C. Huang ◽  
A. Ali ◽  
Y.-M. Chang ◽  
A.F. Bezuidenhout ◽  
D.B. Hackney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Spine Mri

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.

Communication about opioid versus nonopioid analgesics in the emergency department

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle M. McCarthy, MD, MS ◽  
Kenzie A. Cameron, PhD, MPH ◽  
D. Mark Courtney, MD, MS ◽  
James G. Adams, MD ◽  
Kirsten G. Engel, MD
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Frequency Of Use ◽  
Nonopioid Analgesics ◽  
Attending Physicians

Objective: The Medication Communication Index (MCI) was used to compare counseling about opioids to nonopioid analgesics in the Emergency Department (ED) setting.Design: Secondary analysis of prospectively collected audio recordings of ED patient visits.Setting: Urban, academic medical center (>85,000 annual patient visits). Participants: Patient participants aged >18 years with one of four low acuity diagnoses: ankle sprain, back pain, head injury, and laceration. ED clinician participants included resident and attending physicians, nursing staff, and ED technicians.Main outcome measures: The MCI is a five-point index that assigns points for communicating the following: medication name (1), purpose (1), duration (1), adverse effects (1), number of tablets (0.5), and frequency of use (0.5). Recording transcripts were scored with the MCI, and total scores were compared between drug classes.Results: The 41 patients received 56 prescriptions (27 nonopioids, 29 opioids). Nonopioid median MCI score was 3 and opioid score was 4.5 (p = 0.0008). Patients were counseled equally about name (nonopioid 100 percent, opioid 96.6 percent, p = 0.34) and purpose (88.9 percent, 89.7 percent, p = 0.93). However, patients receiving opioids were counseled more frequently about duration of use (nonopioid 40.7 percent, opioid 69.0 percent, p = 0.03) and adverse effects (18.5 percent, 93.1 percent, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, opioids (β = 0.54, p = 0.04), number of medications prescribed (β = −0.49, p = 0.05), and time spent in the ED (β = 0.007, p = 0.006) were all predictors of total MCI score.Conclusions: The extent of counseling about analgesic medications in the ED differs by drug class. When counseling patients about all analgesic medications, providers should address not only medication name and purpose but also the less frequently covered topics of medication dosing, timing, and adverse effects.

scholarly journals PD16-07 AN ASSESSMENT OF PATIENTS APPROPRIATE FOR INITIAL EVALUATION BY AN ADVANCED PRACTICE PROVIDER AT AN ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER

2019 ◽  
Vol 201 (Supplement 4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brooke Moore* ◽  
Carlos Mejia Arbelaez ◽  
Dianne Sacco ◽  
Lauren Swisher ◽  
Brian Eisner
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Initial Evaluation ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Academic Medical
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document