User login
Nurse practitioners (and PAs, I would submit) have been the most researched group of health care professionals since the inception of the role. Much of that research has focused on evaluating our contributions to primary care. Numerous studies of NP performance in various settings have concluded that we perform as well as physicians with respect to patient outcomes, proper diagnosis, management of specific medical conditions, and patient satisfaction.1
Over the past 10 years, however, the interest in our roles has shifted from the primary care arena to the emergency department (ED). Even before the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), two-thirds of all EDs utilized NPs and PAs.2 The ACA increased the number of Americans with insurance coverage, resulting in a greater demand for health care services—including ED utilization. Faced with an already strained system, hospital administrators looked for a solution and found one: hiring NPs and PAs to augment the clinician workforce.
This decision to (increasingly) employ NPs and PAs in ED settings was based on a desire to reduce wait times, increase throughput, improve access to care, and control costs. For the most part, these goals have been achieved. A systematic review of the impact of NPs in the ED on quality of care and patient satisfaction demonstrated a reduction in wait times.3 Moreover, in a national survey that included a review of the types of visits made to the ED, NPs and PAs were comparable to MDs in terms of reasons for care, diagnosis, and treatment.4
Given these results, I again ask: What was the intent of the research by Bai et al?5 Surely proper and prompt care is the goal of every ED provider. So the decision to examine only the billing is confounding.
Are the authors suggesting that hospital administrators prefer employing NPs and PAs over MDs? Are we replacing physicians in certain areas or filling voids where the physician workforce is inadequate to meet the community demands? Maybe yes to both. But, if the goal is to improve access, then we should focus on meeting the needs and on the quality of the care, not on who bills for it.
My cynical self says the goal of Bai et al was to establish that NPs and PAs are taking the jobs of ED physicians, and we must be stopped! Am I tilting at windmills with this train of thought? Next week, we’ll conclude our examination and draw our own conclusions! You can join the conversation by writing to NPEditor@mdedge.com.
1. Congressional Budget Office. Physician extenders: their current and future role in medical care delivery. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1979.
2. Wiler JL, Rooks, SP, Ginde AA. Update on midlevel provider utilization in US emergency departments, 2006 to 2009. Academic Emerg Med. 2012;19(8):986-989.
3. Carter A, Chochinov A. A systematic review of the impact of nurse practitioners on cost, quality of care, satisfaction, and wait times in the emergency department. Can J Emerg Med. 2007;9(4):286-295.
4. Hooker RS, McCaig L. Emergency department uses of physician assistants and nurse practitioners: a national survey. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14:245-249.
5. Bai G, Kelen GD, Frick KD, Anderson GF. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants in emergency medical services who billed independently, 2012-2016. Am J Emerg Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.01.052. Accessed April 1, 2019.
Nurse practitioners (and PAs, I would submit) have been the most researched group of health care professionals since the inception of the role. Much of that research has focused on evaluating our contributions to primary care. Numerous studies of NP performance in various settings have concluded that we perform as well as physicians with respect to patient outcomes, proper diagnosis, management of specific medical conditions, and patient satisfaction.1
Over the past 10 years, however, the interest in our roles has shifted from the primary care arena to the emergency department (ED). Even before the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), two-thirds of all EDs utilized NPs and PAs.2 The ACA increased the number of Americans with insurance coverage, resulting in a greater demand for health care services—including ED utilization. Faced with an already strained system, hospital administrators looked for a solution and found one: hiring NPs and PAs to augment the clinician workforce.
This decision to (increasingly) employ NPs and PAs in ED settings was based on a desire to reduce wait times, increase throughput, improve access to care, and control costs. For the most part, these goals have been achieved. A systematic review of the impact of NPs in the ED on quality of care and patient satisfaction demonstrated a reduction in wait times.3 Moreover, in a national survey that included a review of the types of visits made to the ED, NPs and PAs were comparable to MDs in terms of reasons for care, diagnosis, and treatment.4
Given these results, I again ask: What was the intent of the research by Bai et al?5 Surely proper and prompt care is the goal of every ED provider. So the decision to examine only the billing is confounding.
Are the authors suggesting that hospital administrators prefer employing NPs and PAs over MDs? Are we replacing physicians in certain areas or filling voids where the physician workforce is inadequate to meet the community demands? Maybe yes to both. But, if the goal is to improve access, then we should focus on meeting the needs and on the quality of the care, not on who bills for it.
My cynical self says the goal of Bai et al was to establish that NPs and PAs are taking the jobs of ED physicians, and we must be stopped! Am I tilting at windmills with this train of thought? Next week, we’ll conclude our examination and draw our own conclusions! You can join the conversation by writing to NPEditor@mdedge.com.
Nurse practitioners (and PAs, I would submit) have been the most researched group of health care professionals since the inception of the role. Much of that research has focused on evaluating our contributions to primary care. Numerous studies of NP performance in various settings have concluded that we perform as well as physicians with respect to patient outcomes, proper diagnosis, management of specific medical conditions, and patient satisfaction.1
Over the past 10 years, however, the interest in our roles has shifted from the primary care arena to the emergency department (ED). Even before the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), two-thirds of all EDs utilized NPs and PAs.2 The ACA increased the number of Americans with insurance coverage, resulting in a greater demand for health care services—including ED utilization. Faced with an already strained system, hospital administrators looked for a solution and found one: hiring NPs and PAs to augment the clinician workforce.
This decision to (increasingly) employ NPs and PAs in ED settings was based on a desire to reduce wait times, increase throughput, improve access to care, and control costs. For the most part, these goals have been achieved. A systematic review of the impact of NPs in the ED on quality of care and patient satisfaction demonstrated a reduction in wait times.3 Moreover, in a national survey that included a review of the types of visits made to the ED, NPs and PAs were comparable to MDs in terms of reasons for care, diagnosis, and treatment.4
Given these results, I again ask: What was the intent of the research by Bai et al?5 Surely proper and prompt care is the goal of every ED provider. So the decision to examine only the billing is confounding.
Are the authors suggesting that hospital administrators prefer employing NPs and PAs over MDs? Are we replacing physicians in certain areas or filling voids where the physician workforce is inadequate to meet the community demands? Maybe yes to both. But, if the goal is to improve access, then we should focus on meeting the needs and on the quality of the care, not on who bills for it.
My cynical self says the goal of Bai et al was to establish that NPs and PAs are taking the jobs of ED physicians, and we must be stopped! Am I tilting at windmills with this train of thought? Next week, we’ll conclude our examination and draw our own conclusions! You can join the conversation by writing to NPEditor@mdedge.com.
1. Congressional Budget Office. Physician extenders: their current and future role in medical care delivery. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1979.
2. Wiler JL, Rooks, SP, Ginde AA. Update on midlevel provider utilization in US emergency departments, 2006 to 2009. Academic Emerg Med. 2012;19(8):986-989.
3. Carter A, Chochinov A. A systematic review of the impact of nurse practitioners on cost, quality of care, satisfaction, and wait times in the emergency department. Can J Emerg Med. 2007;9(4):286-295.
4. Hooker RS, McCaig L. Emergency department uses of physician assistants and nurse practitioners: a national survey. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14:245-249.
5. Bai G, Kelen GD, Frick KD, Anderson GF. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants in emergency medical services who billed independently, 2012-2016. Am J Emerg Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.01.052. Accessed April 1, 2019.
1. Congressional Budget Office. Physician extenders: their current and future role in medical care delivery. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1979.
2. Wiler JL, Rooks, SP, Ginde AA. Update on midlevel provider utilization in US emergency departments, 2006 to 2009. Academic Emerg Med. 2012;19(8):986-989.
3. Carter A, Chochinov A. A systematic review of the impact of nurse practitioners on cost, quality of care, satisfaction, and wait times in the emergency department. Can J Emerg Med. 2007;9(4):286-295.
4. Hooker RS, McCaig L. Emergency department uses of physician assistants and nurse practitioners: a national survey. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14:245-249.
5. Bai G, Kelen GD, Frick KD, Anderson GF. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants in emergency medical services who billed independently, 2012-2016. Am J Emerg Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.01.052. Accessed April 1, 2019.
