Assessment of quality indicators among nurse practitioners performing upper endoscopy

Impact of Advanced Practice Provider Integration into Multispecialty Group Practices on Outcomes Following Major Surgery

Background. While advanced practice providers (APPs) are increasingly integrated into care delivery models, little is known about their impact in surgical settings. Given that many patients undergo surgery in multispecialty group practice settings, we examined the impact of APP integration into such practices on outcomes after major surgery. Methods. We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to identify 190 101 patients who underwent 1 of 4 major surgeries (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG], colectomy, major joint replacement, and cystectomy) at multispecialty group practices from 2010 through 2016. The level of APP integration was measured as the ratio of APPs to physicians within each practice. Rates of mortality, major complications, and readmission within 30 days of discharge after the index surgery were compared between patients treated in practices with low, medium, and high levels of APP integration using multivariable regression analysis. Results. Relative to patients treated in practices with low APP integration, those treated in practices with medium or high APP integration had significantly lower rates of mortality (2.4% [low integration] vs 1.9% [medium integration] vs 2.0% [high integration]; P < .01), major complications (34.1% [low] vs 31.2% [medium] vs 30.2% [high]; P < .01), and readmission (11.7% [low] vs 10.6% [medium] vs 10.1% [high]; P < .01). This relationship was consistent for virtually all outcomes when considering each surgery type individually. Conclusions. Integration of APPs into multispecialty group practices was associated with improved postoperative outcomes after major surgery. Future research should identify the mechanisms by which APPs improve outcomes to inform optimal utilization.

A realist review protocol of the role and contribution of the advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) in gastroenterology nursing

Background: The role and contribution of advanced nurse practitioners (ANP) has been well researched and found to be of great value for improving quality patient care and enhancing patient outcomes through education and health promotion. However, the role and the contribution of the ANP to gastroenterology nursing have not been evaluated either nationally or internationally. A review to determine the role and contribution of the ANP in gastroenterology nursing will inform on the contribution of the role and whether the role makes a difference to patient outcomes and cost effectiveness of patient care. Objective: This review aims to investigate the nursing role and contribution of the advanced nurse practitioner in gastroenterology. Furthermore, improved understanding of the underlying causal mechanisms explaining how the ANP role in gastroenterology nursing works, will provide a deeper understanding of how, why, for whom and in what contexts the role and contribution of the ANP to gastroenterology nursing are most successful. Methods: A realist review will consolidate evidence on how, when why and where the ANP role in gastroenterology works or fails through identifying programme theories underlying to the role’s introduction. The following steps will be operationalised; locating existing theories, searching the literature, documenting literature selection, engaging in data extraction and synthesis and refining programme theory. As an iterative approach, review cycles will uncover explanatory and contingent theories through context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCc). Due to the variation in context and mechanisms, different outcomes will be likely across different clinical settings although similar patterns may be identified. Conclusions: Due to the theory-oriented approach of realist reviews, the pragmatic consequences of the review, will lend itself to deeper understanding of how the role and contribution of the ANP in gastroenterology nursing works in practice.

Pediatric penile surgery by a nurse practitioner in the operating room

INTRODUCTION

With the growing shortage of pediatric urological surgeons, it was our aim to streamline our system to get patients with less complex penile procedures performed in a timely manner. To do this, an advanced practice provider (APP) was trained to perform minor penile procedures in children in the operating room(OR).

OBJECTIVES

The goal of our study was to show that with proper training an APP could safely perform a circumcision in the OR.

STUDY DESIGN

After approval of the study center's credentialing committee, a NP was trained to perform revisions and initial circumcisions in children in the OR. The process involved: (1) observation, (2) first assisting and (3) performing the procedure with direct, and later in-direct, supervision. The first 100 cases were evaluated for surgical complications, post-operative complications and return rates to the OR.

RESULTS

100 independent cases were completed with 90 having only in-direct supervision. There were no operative complications, nor any documented emergency room or urgent care visits in the immediate post-operative period. There were no early returns to the OR and only 1 scheduled follow-up procedure for a penile skin bridge.

DISCUSSION

It was demonstrated that with proper training a NP can safely perform minor penile procedures in the OR. This allows us to free up our pediatric urology physicians to see and operate on more complex pediatric urology problems. In addition, it allows those with minor penile issues to be cared for more expeditiously. A concern related to training NPs to do circumcisions could be the loss of control by urologists. In this situation, the attending physician is ultimately responsible from a medico-legal standpoint. That would not be true if the NP was practicing independently. With a shortage of urologists, this significantly expands the ability to care for our patient population. In additional, attending surgeons will have a greater freedom to perform major procedures. A limitation of the study was that a patient satisfaction survey was not obtained to see if there were concerns over a APP doing their circumcision. Personal feedback on 30 of the patients that did not return for the follow-up visit was not obtained. The authors of the study are primary providers of pediatric urology care in the study region, thus any individual with concerns would have been referred.

CONCLUSIONS

It was demonstrated that a well-trained APP can safely perform minor penile procedures independently in the OR with indirect supervision.