Nurse practitioners' use of diagnostic imaging: A scoping review

AIM

To explore the nature and extent of peer-reviewed literature related to the use of diagnostic imaging by nurse practitioners (NPs) to inform future practice and research.

BACKGROUND

Nurse practitioners undertake advanced assessment, diagnosis, and management of patients, including requesting and interpretation of diagnostic imaging. It is unclear what evidence exists related to the quality use of radiological investigations by NPs in recent years.

DESIGN

A scoping review based on the steps suggested by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

METHODS

A structured review of the databases Medline, CINAHL and Embase was undertaken using the keywords and MESH terms 'nurse practitioner', 'medical imaging', 'diagnostic imaging', 'scan' and 'radiography'. Only English language articles were included, and no date limit was applied. Database review was completed on 30 May 2021.

RESULTS

Eight themes were identified-country and clinical context, requesting diagnostic imaging, performing diagnostic imaging, image-guided interventions, interpreting diagnostic imaging, training education and knowledge, impact on resource usage and comparison with medical practitioners. There were more studies across a greater breadth of clinical specialties and imaging modalities in the United States than in other countries. Nurse practitioner practice is frequently benchmarked against that of medical colleagues. There is a paucity of studies focusing on educational preparation and the lack of relevant university curricula for NPs around diagnostic imaging.

CONCLUSION

There are significant gaps in the evidence outside of the United States across several of the identified themes. Further studies are needed to explore NP access to and use of diagnostic imaging and to understand the barriers and facilitators to this.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Studies from four countries were included in this review. The evidence suggests that, where studied, nurse practitioners (NPs) can safely and appropriately request and interpret plain x-rays in the emergency and minor injuries setting. Further research is needed to evaluate the educational needs of NPs in relation to diagnostic imaging and their use of advanced imaging techniques, particularly outside of the United States.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Trends in Diagnostic Imaging by Nonphysician Practitioners and Associations With Urbanicity and Scope-of-Practice Authority

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the changing share of diagnostic imaging billed by NPPs and how such changes differ by urbanicity within the context of scope-of-practice (SOP) regulations and legislation.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used patient claims for diagnostic imaging studies spanning 2016-2020 from Optum Clinformatics Datamart datasets. Multivariable modeling determined the odds of patients receiving NPP-interpreted vs physician-interpreted imaging. Imaging rates and trends in proportions of NPP-billed claims were assessed by urbanicity and relative to other factors including SOP, imaging modality, and place of service.

RESULTS

Of all identified imaging claims, 3,348,881 (3.0%) were attributed to NPPs, with the highest rates of NPP interpretations per 10,000 images occurring in rural and small-town areas. From 2016 to 2020, the rate of NPP-billed imaging increased from 257 to 331 claims per 10,000 beneficiaries (P = 0.004), observed across both metropolitan (240 to 315, P = 0.001) and micropolitan (367 to 436, P = 0.020) settings. Although rates in rural and small-town areas rose, the increase was not significant (330 to 392, P = 0.363). Rises in NPP imaging in metropolitan settings occurred in states with moderately restrictive (307 to 358, P = 0.008) and least restrictive (289 to 419, P = 0.004) SOP legislation.

DISCUSSION

Rates of diagnostic imaging interpretation by NPPs are rising. Growth in recent years appears driven by metropolitan areas in states with less restrictive SOP regulations. Future work is necessary to assess the quality of and downstream costs related to increasing NPP-interpreted imaging.

Growing Pains of Nonphysician Providers in Radiology

Nonphysician providers (NPPs) place in medicine continues to evolve regardless of controversy. NPPs presence in academic and private practices continues to grow in all fields. Despite their growth, there remains Contention and debate about the capability, safety, efficiency, and aptitude of NPP's abilities for proper image ordering, image interpretation, and performing radiology-related tasks. NNPs role in healthcare across the United States continues to grow in all facets of healthcare, including radiology and radiologist related procedures. The claims submitted by NPPs involving radiology have significantly increased. However, current research suggests that the current scope of practice maintains the levels of capability, safety, efficiency and aptitude of a physician. It is imperative to note that there remains no evidence comparing diagnostic accuracy/errors between NPPs and radiologists. Despite the increased radiology services rendered by NPPs, the output of NPPs is still fractional compared to radiologists but it is mostly fluoroscopy and radiography. As with medical student education, the education for NPPs has continued to grow to encompass more aspects of medicine, including radiology. Evidence-based programs for NPP radiology training offers potential to encourage proper radiology service rendering. 10,15 NPPs are skilled in their ability to provide care for specific common conditions and potential greater ability to follow protocol. All of these factors promote the opportunity to take tedious tasks and/or cases from overworked radiologists to pursue greater generation of profit and work-life balance.

Professional Services Rendered by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants Employed by Radiology Practices: Characteristics and Trends From 2017 Through 2019

PURPOSE

With radiology practices increasingly employing nonphysician practitioners (NPPs), we aimed to characterize specific NPP clinical roles.

METHODS

Linking 2017 to 2019 Medicare data sets, we identified all claims-submitting nurse practitioners and physician assistants (together NPPs) employed by radiologists. NPP-billed services were identified, weighted by work relative value units, and categorized as (1) clinical evaluation and management (E&M), (2) invasive procedures, and (3) noninvasive imaging interpretation. NPP practice patterns were assessed temporally and using frequency analysis.

RESULTS

As the number of radiologist-employed NPPs submitting claims increased 16.3% (from 523 in 2017 to 608 in 2019), their aggregate Medicare fee-for-service work relative value units increased 17.3% (+40.0% for E&M [from 79,540 to 111,337]; +5.6% for procedures [from 179,044 to 189,003]; and +74.0% for imaging [from 5,087 to 8,850]). The number performing E&M, invasive procedures, and imaging interpretation increased 7.6% (from 329 to 354), 18.3% (from 387 to 458), and 31.8% (from 85 to 112), with 58.2%, 75.3%, and 18.4% billing those services in 2019. Paracentesis and thoracentesis were the most frequently billed invasive procedures. Fluoroscopic swallowing and bone densitometry examinations were the most frequently billed imaging services. By region, NPPs practicing as majority clinical E&M providers were most common in the Midwest (33.5%) and South (33.0%), majority proceduralists in the South (53.1%), and majority image interpreters in the Midwest (50.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

As radiology practices employ more NPPs, radiologist-employed NPPs' aggregate services have increased for E&M, invasive procedures, and imaging interpretation. Most radiologist-employed NPPs perform invasive procedures and E&M. Although performed by a small minority, imaging interpretation has shown the largest relative service growth.

Teaching Physician Supervision: Medicare's Ongoing Imperative for Academic Radiologists

OBJECTIVE. Medicare permits radiologists to bill for trainee work but only in narrowly defined circumstances and with considerable consequences for noncompliance. The purpose of this article is to introduce relevant policy rationale and definitions, review payment requirements, outline documentation and operational considerations for diagnostic and interventional radiology services, and offer practical suggestions for academic radiologists striving to optimize regulatory compliance. CONCLUSION. As academic radiology departments advance their missions of service, teaching, and scholarship, most rely on residents and fellows to support expanding clinical demands. Given the risks of technical noncompliance, institutional commitment and ongoing education regarding teaching supervision compliance are warranted.