Perri Morgan

Characteristics of primary care office visits to nurse practitioners, physician assistants and physicians in United States Veterans Health Administration facilities, 2005 to 2010: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis

BackgroundPrimary care, an essential determinant of health system equity, efficiency, and effectiveness, is threatened by inadequate supply and distribution of the provider workforce. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been a frontrunner in the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Evaluation of the roles and impact of NPs and PAs in the VHA is critical to ensuring optimal care for veterans and may inform best practices for use of PAs and NPs in other settings around the world. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of NPs and PAs in VHA primary care and to examine whether their patients and patient care activities were, on average, less medically complex than those of physicians.MethodsThis is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of administrative data from VHA primary care encounters between 2005 and 2010. Patient and patient encounter characteristics were compared across provider types (PA, NP, and physician).ResultsNPs and PAs attend about 30% of all VHA primary care encounters. NPs, PAs, and physicians fill similar roles in VHA primary care, but patients of PAs and NPs are slightly less complex than those of physicians, and PAs attend a higher proportion of visits for the purpose of determining eligibility for benefits.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that a highly successful nationwide primary care system relies on NPs and PAs to provide over one quarter of primary care visits, and that these visits are similar to those of physicians with regard to patient and encounter characteristics. These findings can inform health workforce solutions to physician shortages in the USA and around the world. Future research should compare the quality and costs associated with various combinations of providers and allocations of patient care work, and should elucidate the approaches that maximize quality and efficiency.

The contribution of physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners toward rural primary care: findings from a 13-state survey.

Background:Estimates of the relative contributions of physicians, physician assistants (PAs), and nurse practitioners (NPs) toward rural primary care are needed to inform workforce planning activities aimed at reducing rural primary shortages. Objectives:For each provider group, this study quantifies the average weekly number of outpatient primary care visits and the types of services provided within and beyond the outpatient setting. Methods:A randomly drawn sample of 788 physicians, 601 PAs, and 918 NPs with rural addresses in 13 US states responded to a mailed questionnaire that measured reported weekly outpatient visits and scope of services provided within and beyond the outpatient setting. Analysis of variance and &khgr;2 testing were used to test for bivariate associations. Multivariate regression was used to model average weekly outpatient volume adjusting for provider sociodemographics and geographical location. Results:Compared with physicians, average weekly outpatient visit quantity was 8% lower for PAs and 25% lower for NPs (P<0.001). After multivariate adjustment, this gap became negligible for PAs (P=0.56) and decreased to 10% for NPs (P<0.001). Compared with PAs and NPs, primary care physicians were more likely to provide services beyond the outpatient setting, including hospital care, emergency care, childbirth attending deliveries, and after-hours call coverage (all P<0.001). Conclusions:Although our findings suggest that a greater reliance on PAs and NPs in rural primary settings would have a minor impact on outpatient practice volume, this shift might reduce the availability of services that have more often been traditionally provided by rural primary care physicians beyond the outpatient clinic setting.

Impact of Physician Assistant Care on Office Visit Resource Use in the United States

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether the use of physician assistants (PAs) as providers for a substantive portion of a patients office-based visits affects office visit resource use. DATA SOURCE Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component data from 1996 to 2004. STUDY DESIGN This retrospective cohort study compares the number of office-based visits per year between adults for whom PAs provided >or=30 percent of visits and adults cared for by physicians only. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality collects MEPS data using methods designed to produce data representative of the U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population. Negative binomial regression was used to compare the number of visits per year between persons with and without PA care, adjusted for demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic factors; insurance status; health status; and medical conditions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS After case-mix adjustment, patients for whom PAs provided a substantive portion of care used about 16 percent fewer office-based visits per year than patients cared for by physicians only. This difference in the use of office-based visits was not offset by increased office visit resource use in other settings. CONCLUSIONS Results indicate that the inclusion of PAs in the U.S. provider mix does not affect overall office visit resource use.

Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians in community health centers, 2006-2010

PURPOSE Community health centers (CHCs) fill a vital role in providing health care to underserved populations. This project compares characteristics of patient visits to nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and physicians in CHCs. METHODS This study analyzes 2006-2010 annual survey data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey CHC sample, a representative national sample of CHC providers and patient visits. We examine trends in provider mix in CHCs and compare NPs, PAs, and physicians with regard to patient and visit attributes. Survey weights are used to produce national estimates. RESULTS There were, on average, 36,469,000 patient visits per year to 150,100 providers at CHCs; 69% of visits were to physicians, 21% were to NPs, and 10% were to PAs. Compared to visits to NPs, visits made to physicians and PAs tended to be for chronic disease treatment and for patients whom they serve as primary care providers. Visits to NPs tended to be for preventive care. CONCLUSIONS This study found more similarities than differences in characteristics of patients and patient visits to physicians, NPs, and PAs in CHCs. When statistical differences were observed, NP patient and visit characteristics tended to be different from those of physicians. IMPLICATIONS Results provide detailed information about visits to NPs and PAs in a setting where they constitute a significant portion of providers and care for vulnerable populations. Results can inform future workforce approaches.

Time spent with patients by physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants in community health centers, 2006-2010

BACKGROUND As health systems struggle to meet access, cost and quality goals in the setting of increased demand, nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are expected to help meet the need for care. The amount of time spent with each patient can affect the clinical productivity, quality of care, and satisfaction of patients and clinicians. This paper compares time spent per patient in community health centers by whether the provider is a physician, NP, or PA. METHODS This paper uses National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) Community Health Center (CHC) data from 2006-2010. The NAMCS CHC strata is a national sample of CHCs, providers within CHCs, and patient visits to CHCs. Provider characteristics and variables related to time spent with patients across provider types were compared using t tests and chi square tests of association. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to compare time spent with patients, controlling for patient and visit characteristics. RESULTS There were no differences in the number of visits by provider type, but PAs saw patients for a slightly larger portion of the week (3.8 days) than did physicians (3.5 days, p<0.05) or NPs (3.4 days, p<0.05). There were no statistical differences in the mean time spent per patient in the crude and adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS Time spent per patient in CHCs is similar for physicians, NPs and PAs. This information may be useful to planners concerned with health system capacity and cost efficiency, and has implications for patient and provider satisfaction.

How do non-physician clinicians respond to advanced cancer patients’ negative expressions of emotions?

PurposePatients with advanced cancer often experience negative emotion; clinicians’ empathic responses can alleviate patient distress. Much is known about how physicians respond to patient emotion; less is known about non-physician clinicians. Given that oncology care is increasingly provided by an interdisciplinary team, it is important to know more about how patients with advanced cancer express emotions to non-physician clinicians (NPCs) and how NPCs respond to those empathic opportunities.MethodWe audio recorded conversations between non-physician clinicians and patients with advanced cancer. We analyzed 45 conversations between patients and oncology physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse clinicians in which patients or their loved ones expressed at least one negative emotion to the NPC (i.e., an empathic opportunity). Empathic opportunities were coded three ways: type of emotion (anger, sadness, or fear), severity of emotion (least, moderate, or most severe), and NPC response to emotion (not empathic, on-topic medical response, and empathic response).ResultsWe identified 103 empathic opportunities presented to 25 different NPCs during 45 visits. Approximately half of the empathic opportunities contained anger (53%), followed by sadness (25%) and fear (21%). The majority of emotions expressed were moderately severe (73%), followed by most severe (16%), and least severe (12%). The severity of emotions presented was not found to be statistically different between types of NPCs. NPCs responded to empathic opportunities with empathic statements 30% of the time. Additionally, 40% of the time, NPCs responded to empathic opportunities with on-topic, medical explanations and 30% of the responses were not empathic.ConclusionPatients expressed emotional concerns to NPCs typically in the form of anger; most emotions were moderately severe, with no statistical differences among types of NPC. On average, NPCs responded to patient emotion with empathic language only 30% of the time. A better understanding of NPC–patient interactions can contribute to improved communication training for NPCs and, ultimately, to higher quality patient care in cancer.

Physician assistants and nurse practitioners: a missing component in state workforce assessments

Due to current or predicted health workforce shortages, policy makers worldwide are addressing issues of task allocation, skill mix, and role substitution. This article presents an example of this process in the United States (US). Health workforce analysts recommend that US physician workforce planning account for the impact of physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs). We examined 40 state workforce assessments in order to identify best practices for including PAs/NPs. Most assessments (about 60%) did not include PAs/NPs in provider counts, workforce projections or recommendations. Only 35% enumerated PAs/NPs. Best practices included use of an accurate data source, such as state licensing data, and combined workforce planning for PAs, NPs, and physicians. Our findings suggest that interprofessional medical workforce planning is not the norm among the states in the US. The best practices that we identify may be instructive to states as they develop methods for assessing workforce adequacy. Our discussion of potential barriers to interprofessional workforce planning may be useful to policy makers worldwide as they confront issues related to professional boundaries and interprofessional workforce planning.

Comparing Oncologist, Nurse, and Physician Assistant Attitudes Toward Discussions of Negative Emotions with Patients

Purpose: Although research shows that empathic communication improves patient outcomes, physicians often fail to respond empathically to patients. Nurses and physician assistants (PAs) may be able to help fill the need for empathic communication. Our study compares the attitudes of oncologists, nurses, and PAs toward communication with patients who demonstrate negative emotions. Methods: We analyzed surveys from 48 oncologists, 26 PAs, and 22 nurses who participated in the Studying Communication in Oncologist‐Patient Encounters trial. Surveys included previously validated items that examined attitudes toward communication with patients about emotion. Results: The mean age of oncology physicians was higher (49 years) than that of PAs (40 years) or nurses (43 years), and 19% of physicians, 81% of PAs, and 100% of nurses were female. Race, years of oncology experience, and previous communication training were similar across provider types. Most nurses (82%) and PAs (68%) described themselves as having a socioemotional orientation, while most oncologists (70%) reported a technological/scientific orientation (p < .0001). PAs and nurses indicated more comfort with psychosocial talk than did oncologists (p < .0001). Discomfort with disclosing uncertainty and provider confidence and expectations when addressing patient concerns were similar across provider types. Conclusions: PAs and nurses were more oriented toward socioemotional aspects of medicine and were more comfortable with psychosocial talk than were oncologists. Future studies should examine whether these differences are attributable to other factors, including gender, and whether nurses and PAs are more likely than physicians to demonstrate empathic behaviors when patients express negative emotions.

Specialty distribution of physician assistants and nurse practitioners in North Carolina.

ABSTRACTPhysician workforce projections often include scenarios that forecast physician shortages under different assumptions about the deployment of physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs). These scenarios generally assume that PAs and NPs are an interchangeable resource and that their specialty distributions do not change over time. This study investigated changes in PA and NP specialty distribution in North Carolina between 1997 and 2013. The data show that over the study period, PAs and NPs practiced in a wide range of specialties, but each profession had a specific pattern. The proportion of PAs—but not NPs—reporting practice in primary care dropped significantly. PAs were more likely than NPs to report practice in urgent care, emergency medicine, and surgical subspecialties. Physician workforce models need to account for the different and changing specialization trends of NPs and PAs.

Primary care physician assistant and advance practice nurses roles: Patient healthcare utilization, unmet need, and satisfaction.

PURPOSE Team-based care involving physician assistants (PAs) and advance practice nurses (APNs) is one strategy for improving access and quality of care. PA/APNs perform a variety of roles on primary care teams. However, limited research describes the relationship between PA/APN role and patient outcomes. We examined multiple outcomes associated with primary care PA/APN roles. METHODS In this cross-sectional survey analysis, we studied adult respondents to the 2010 Health Tracking Household Survey. Outcomes included primary care and emergency department visits, hospitalizations, unmet need, and satisfaction. PA/APN role was categorized as physician only (no PA/APN visits; reference), usual provider (PA/APN provide majority of primary care visits) or supplemental provider (physician as usual provider, PA/APN provide a subset of visits). Multivariable logistic and multinomial logistic regressions were performed. RESULTS Compared to people with physician only care, patients with PA/APNs as usual providers [5-9 visits RRR=2.4 (CI 1.8-3.4), 10+ visits RRR=3.0 (CI 2.0-4.5): reference 2-4 visits] and supplemental providers had increased risk of having 5 or more primary care visits [5-9 visits RRR=1.3 (CI 1.0-1.6)]. Patients reporting PA/APN as supplemental providers had increased risk of emergency department utilization [2+ visits: RRR 1.8 (CI 1.3, 2.5)], and lower satisfaction [very dissatisfied: RRR 1.8 (CI 1.03-3.0)]. No differences were seen for hospitalizations or unmet need. CONCLUSIONS Healthcare utilization patterns and satisfaction varied between adults with PA/APN in different roles, but reported unmet need did not. These findings suggest a wide range of outcomes should be considered when identifying the best PA/APN role on primary care teams.