Dataset Information

Comparison of Work Patterns Between Physicians and Advanced Practice Practitioners in Primary Care and Specialty Practice Settings.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Despite the increasing involvement of advanced practice practitioners (APPs; ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in care delivery across specialties, the work patterns of APPs compared with physicians and how they are integrated into care teams have not been well characterized.

Objective

To characterize differences between physicians and APPs across specialty types related to days with appointments, visit types seen, and time spent using the electronic health record (EHR).

Design, setting, and participants

This nationwide, cross-sectional study used EHR data from physicians and APPs (ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) at all US institutions that used Epic Systems' EHR between January and May 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to April 2023.

Main outcomes and measures

Appointment scheduling patterns, percentage of new and established and level of evaluation and management (E/M) visits, and EHR use metrics per day and week.

Results

The sample consisted of 217 924 clinicians across 389 organizations, including 174 939 physicians and 42 985 APPs. Although primary care physicians were more likely than APPs to have more than 3 days per week with appointments (50 921 physicians [79.5%] vs 17 095 APPs [77.9%]), this trend was reversed for medical (38 645 physicians [64.8%] vs 8124 APPs [74.0%]) and surgical (24 155 physicians [47.1%] vs 5198 APPs [51.7%]) specialties. Medical and surgical specialty physicians saw 6.7 and 7.4 percentage points, respectively, more new patient visits than did their APP counterparts, whereas primary care physicians saw 2.8 percentage points fewer new patient visits than did APPs. Physicians saw a greater percentage of level 4 or 5 visits across all specialties. Medical and surgical physicians spent 34.3 and 45.8 fewer minutes per day, respectively, using the EHR than did APPs in their specialties, whereas primary care physicians spent 17.7 minutes per day more. These differences translated to primary care physicians spending 96.3 minutes more per week using the EHR than APPs, whereas medical and surgical physicians spent 149.9 and 140.7 fewer minutes, respectively, than did their APP counterparts.

Conclusions and relevance

This cross-sectional, national study of clinicians found significant differences in visit and EHR patterns for physicians compared with APPs across specialty types. By underscoring the different current usage of physicians vs APPs across specialty types, this study helps place into context the work and visit patterns of physicians compared with APPs and serves as a foundation for evaluations of clinical outcomes and quality.

SUBMITTER: Rotenstein LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10265293 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Work Patterns Between Physicians and Advanced Practice Practitioners in Primary Care and Specialty Practice Settings.

Rotenstein Lisa S LS Apathy Nate N Edgman-Levitan Susan S Landon Bruce B

JAMA network open 20230601 6

<h4>Importance</h4>Despite the increasing involvement of advanced practice practitioners (APPs; ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in care delivery across specialties, the work patterns of APPs compared with physicians and how they are integrated into care teams have not been well characterized.<h4>Objective</h4>To characterize differences between physicians and APPs across specialty types related to days with appointments, visit types seen, and time spent using the electronic hea ...[more]

PMID: 37310739

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBurnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices.DesignCross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015-6/19/2017.SettingSample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services.Participants10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices.Main measureBurnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure.Key resultsBurnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.10-1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2-5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.42; 95%CI, 1.16-1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.03-1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff.ConclusionsBurnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care is facing a multimorbid, ageing population and a lack of general practitioners (GPs), especially in rural areas. In many countries, advanced practice nurses (APNs) may be a potential solution for these challenges. Switzerland, however, is in the early stages of APN role development with a handful of pilot projects that are unresearched. Our aim was to explore the experiences of APNs and GPs involved in introducing the APN role to Swiss primary care. METHODS:We organised two focus group discussions with APNs (n = 9) engaged in primary care across German-speaking Switzerland and individual interviews with APNs (n = 2) and GPs (n = 4) from two pilot projects in remote areas. Data analysis followed an exploratory hybrid approach of thematic analysis and was guided by the PEPPA Plus framework. RESULTS:The analysis resulted in five main themes: The participants considered themselves pioneers developing a new model in primary care, seeking to shape and improve future health care ((1) pioneering spirit). Both nurses and doctors agreed on the additional value of the APN role, a role seen as having more time for and a different approach to patient care, bringing higher quality of care and flexibility to the practice ((2) added value from the APN role). Participants also emphasized the importance of asking for advice when unsure about diagnostic steps or appropriate treatment ((3) awareness of limited knowledge and skills). The main barriers identified included the impression that Swiss doctors have little knowledge about nurses in advanced roles ((4) GP's lack of knowledge regarding the APN role), and that further regulations will be important to foster role clarity and accountability ((5) political and legal obstacles in introducing the APN role). CONCLUSIONS:The early phase of introducing APNs to Swiss primary care is characterised by heterogeneous, small-scale projects of pioneering GPs and APNs recognising the added value and limits of APNs despite a lack of governance and knowledge regarding the APN role among GPs. Experiences gained from ongoing projects provide elements of good practice for political discussions and regulations.

Project description:BackgroundCombatting antimicrobial resistance requires a One Health approach to antimicrobial stewardship including antimicrobial drug (AMD) use evaluation. Current veterinary AMD prescribing data are limited.ObjectivesTo quantify companion animal AMD prescribing in primary care and specialty practice across 3 academic veterinary hospitals with particular focus on third-generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, and carbapenems.AnimalsDogs and cats presented to 3 academic veterinary hospitals from 2012 to 2017.MethodsIn this retrospective study, AMD prescribing data from 2012 to 2017 were extracted from electronic medical records at each hospital and prescriptions classified by service type: primary care, specialty practice or Emergency/Critical Care (ECC). Hospital-level AMD prescribing data were summarized by species, service type, AMD class, and drug. Multivariable logistic full-factorial regression models were used to estimate hospital, year, species, and service-type effects on AMD prescribing. Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals were plotted over time.ResultsThe probability of systemic AMD prescribing for any indication ranged between 0.15 and 0.28 and was higher for dogs than cats (P < .05) apart from 2017 at hospital 1. Animals presented to primary care were least likely to receive AMDs (dogs 0.03-0.15, cats 0.03-0.18). The most commonly prescribed AMD classes were aminopenicillins/β-lactamase inhibitors (0.02-0.15), first-generation cephalosporins (0.00-0.09), fluoroquinolones (0.00-0.04), nitroimidazoles (0.01-0.06), and tetracyclines (0.00-0.03). Among the highest priority classes, fluoroquinolones (dogs 0.00-0.09, cats 0.00-0.08) and third-generation cephalosporins (dogs 0.00-0.04, cats 0.00-0.05) were most frequently prescribed.Conclusions and clinical importanceAntimicrobial drug prescribing frequencies were comparable to previous studies. Additional stewardship efforts might focus on fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Work Patterns Between Physicians and Advanced Practice Practitioners in Primary Care and Specialty Practice Settings.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Comparison of Work Patterns Between Physicians and Advanced Practice Practitioners in Primary Care and Specialty Practice Settings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets