Advanced Practice Clinicians Research Articles

Standardized Patient Communication and Low-Value Spinal Imaging: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Acute back pain is a common reason for primary care visits and often results in low-value spinal imaging. To evaluate the effect of a standardized patient-delivered intervention on rates of low-value spinal imaging among primary care patients with acute low back pain. In this randomized clinical trial, physicians or advanced practice clinicians were recruited from March 22 to August 5, 2021, from 10 adult primary care or urgent care clinics in Sacramento, California. The intervention period was from May 1, 2021, to March 30, 2022, with follow-up from October 28, 2021, to June 30, 2023. Analyses were performed from April 1 to June 25, 2024. Clinicians were randomized 1:1 to intervention or control. Intervention clinicians received 3 simulated office visits, each with a standardized patient instructor (SPI) portraying a patient with acute uncomplicated back pain. At each visit, SPIs provided clinician feedback guided by a 3-step model: (1) set the stage for deferred imaging by building trust, (2) convey empathy, and (3) communicate optimism while advocating watchful waiting without imaging. Control clinicians received no intervention. The primary outcome was lumbar spinal imaging completion within 90 days of acute low back pain visits, with study clinicians assessed up to 18 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were cervical spine imaging completion after acute neck pain visits, any imaging completion after an adult visit, patient experience ratings of clinicians (scale range, 0-100), and use of targeted communication skills during an audio-recorded standardized patient evaluation visit at median follow-up of 16.8 months (range, 14.1-18.0 months). The analysis included 53 clinicians; mean (SD) age was 46.7 (1.0) years, and 35 (66.0%) reported female gender. A total of 25 were in the intervention group and 28 in the control group. After adjustment for prerandomization rates, patients with acute low back pain who saw intervention and control clinicians during follow-up had similar rates of lumbar imaging (194 of 1234 clinic visits [15.7%] vs 226 of 1306 clinic visits [17.3%]; adjusted ratio of postintervention vs preintervention odds ratios [AORR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.72-1.40). Adjusted follow-up rates of imaging for acute neck pain (AORR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83-1.63) and overall imaging (AORR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.19) were not significantly different among patients of intervention and control clinicians. Intervention and control clinicians had similar mean (SD) patient experience ratings during follow-up (88.6 [28.7] vs 88.8 [28.3]; adjusted mean difference-in-differences, -1.0; 95% CI, -3.0 to 0.9). During audio-recorded standardized patient visits, intervention clinicians had significantly better ratings than controls on eliciting the patient's perspective (adjusted standardized difference [ASD], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.05-1.19) and conveying empathy (ASD, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.55-1.77). In this randomized clinical trial of an educational intervention using simulated office visits to encourage a watchful waiting approach for acute low back pain, the intervention had no significant effect on low-value spinal imaging rates or patient experience ratings. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04255199.

Value-based versus usual care for heart failure patients leads to reduction in cost, hospital admissions and improved survival

Abstract Background OptumCare (OC) in our city, Nevada established a heart failure (HF) program comprised of a team of outpatient cardiologists including two who are board certified in advanced heart failure. Referred patients are enrolled in the HF program once HF is diagnosed by a cardiologist. Patients are managed by an interdisciplinary team of cardiologists, advanced practice clinicians (APC), registered nurse case managers (RNCM), and a social worker. Patients at higher risk for HF admissions are enrolled in remote patient telemonitoring. In contrast, OC in Arizona utilizes a "usual" care approach of fee-for-service contracted cardiology groups to manage HF patients in outpatient and in-patient settings. Purpose A head-to-head comparison was performed between the cohort of patients enrolled in HF program in OC Nevada (treatment group) and patients with HF diagnosis in OC Arizona (control group). The groups were compared on the following measures: medical cost, hospital admissions, and survival rates. Methods In this retrospective study, a 1:1 iterative propensity score (PS) matching was performed to closely approximate patient demographics and comorbidities, which resulted in 818 matched pairs (total n=1,636) of the patients with program enrollment or 1st HF diagnosis between March 1, 2019 and June 30, 2022. For Difference-in-Difference Analysis (Diff-in-Diff), generalized linear models were used on PS matched data to test the difference in difference in medical cost and utilizations changes between control and treatment group over a six month period. Log-Binomial regression was used to estimate the relative risk of post period 30-day readmission and hospice enrollment. Kaplan Meier Estimator was used to test the difference in survival rates over time. Results Average age of patients was 77.6 years old, and 49% were female. The treatment group resulted in significantly lower overall medical costs per member per month (PMPM), significantly less emergency room (ER) visits, less acute hospital and skilled nursing facility (SNF) admissions, and shorter overall hospital length of stays. The control group was twice as likely to be readmitted to the hospital. Lastly, the treatment group had a significantly better survival rate than the control group. 19% of the patients in the control group expired within 12 months of enrollment vs. 10% of the patients in the treatment group expired during the same time period. Average survival was 142 days in the control group vs. 200 days in the treatment group. Conclusions A value-based care approach involving a multidisciplinary team in an outpatient-based cardiology HF program resulted in statistically significant improvement in medical costs, acute care visits/admissions, and survival rates compared to "usual" care approach for HF patients.

Teamwork enhances patient experience: linking TEAM and Net Promoter Scores.

We previously described a 6-item teamwork index (TEAM) with a strong relationship to provider experience, lower burnout, and intent to stay. We now sought to determine whether (1) TEAM relates to higher patient Net Promoter Score (NPS, or likelihood of patient referring to the organization) and (2) teamwork mediates a provider experience-NPS relationship. A provider wellness survey was administered in the fall of 2019 in 6 care delivery organizations (CDOs) with patient NPS data. Measures included a validated burnout item, 6-item TEAM measure, provider experience metric, standard intent-to-stay question, and NPS data from 79,254 patients matched to CDO. Regression analyses modeled relationships among TEAM, provider experience, and NPS. Open-ended comments were reviewed to confirm patient NPS findings. There were 1386 provider respondents (53% physicians, 47% advanced practice clinicians, 58% female, 62% White, 58% in primary care; response rate, 55.7%). Median NPS was 83%. TEAM was associated with patient NPS greater than the median (53% with high TEAM and high NPS vs 44% with low TEAM and high NPS; P < .001), as was provider experience (52% vs 45%; P < .05). In regression analyses, patient NPS was strongly related to TEAM (adjusted OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.25-1.60; P < .001). The provider experience-patient NPS relationship was partly mediated by TEAM. Open-ended comments confirmed positive or negative sentiments related to NPS. Teamwork and provider experience relate to patient NPS, and the provider experience-NPS relationship appears to be mediated by teamwork.

Care Coordination in Primary Care: Views of Clinicians and Clinic Leaders.

Care coordination is an important strategy for addressing patient needs and improving outcomes of care. The Minnesota Care Coordination Effectiveness Study sought to better understand the perspectives and experiences of clinicians/clinic leaders regarding the value, barriers, and facilitators for care coordination in primary care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 clinic managers, physicians, and advanced practice clinicians. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. Five themes arose in the interviews: financial issues were perceived as a primary barrier to care coordination; participants valued care coordination as an important asset; they employed significant variation in how care coordination was structured; they identified both medical and social needs of patients as important; and care coordinators' background, experience, and integration were viewed as critical to program success. Care coordination received strong support from clinicians and clinic leaders who viewed it as a valuable component of successful care delivery.

Clinician Willingness to Prescribe Medications for Opioid Use Disorder to Adolescents in Indiana.

Prescribing medications for opioid use disorders (MOUD), including buprenorphine, naltrexone, and methadone, to adolescents remains an underused evidence-based strategy for reducing harms associated with opioid use. To identify potential associations between clinician- and community-level characteristics regarding clinicians' self-reported willingness to prescribe MOUD to adolescents. This cross-sectional study included a phone survey of Indiana clinicians and spatial analysis of community-level characteristics. Clinicians were eligible for inclusion in analyses if actively providing health care and listed on the Buprenorphine Practitioner Locator website, a publicly available national registry of clinicians possessing a waiver to legally prescribe buprenorphine (ie, waivered clinicians). Community-level characteristics, including total population, rurality or urbanicity, percentage with incomes below the federal poverty line, and racial or ethnic makeup. Clinicians were asked about their willingness to prescribe MOUD to adolescents younger than 18 years if clinically indicated. Responses were recorded as no, yes, or yes with conditions. Among the 871 clinicians listed on the website as of July 2022, 832 were eligible for inclusion and contacted by phone. Among waivered clinicians, 759 (91.2%) reported being unwilling to prescribe MOUD to adolescents, 73 clinicians (8.8%) reported willingness to prescribe MOUD to adolescents, and only 24 (2.9%) would do so without conditions. A multivariable logistic regression model including spatially lagged community-level variables showed that, among areas with waivered clinicians, clinicians practicing in more populated areas were significantly less likely to prescribe to adolescents (β = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87; P = .003). Similarly, those in more rural areas were significantly more likely to prescribe to adolescents (β = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.58; P = .03). Variation in clinician willingness to prescribe was not explained by other community-level characteristics. Among all waivered clinicians, advanced practice clinicians were less likely than physicians to report willingness to prescribe (β = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.97; P = .04), as were physicians without any specialty training relevant to MOUD prescribing when compared with family medicine clinicians (β = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.89; P = .03). A small subgroup of waivered clinicians had training in pediatrics (13 clinicians [1.6%]), and none were willing to prescribe MOUD to adolescents. From this cross-sectional study, it appears that Indiana adolescents continued to face gaps in access to MOUD treatment, despite its well-established efficacy. Programs that support primary care practitioners, including family medicine clinicians and pediatricians, in safe and appropriate use of MOUD in adolescents may bridge these gaps.

Confidence in diagnosing and managing care for cognitive impairment in primary care: a survey comparing barriers by primary care clinician type.

As cognitive impairment (CI) prevalence rises and primary care screening becomes commonplace, it is critical to understand how to support clinicians. We describe clinician-reported barriers to diagnosing and managing care for patients with CI in a health system with standardized screening. We also explore whether barriers differ by clinician type-physician or advanced-practice clinician (APC). Theory-informed surveys were administered to primary care clinicians in a large integrated health system. The survey assessed barriers, confidence in diagnosing CI and managing CI care, beliefs about the consequences of diagnosing CI, and usability of the electronic health record (EHR) to diagnose and manage CI care; it also included open-ended response items. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to describe perceived barriers. Differences by clinician type were compared using chi-square. Of the 408 eligible clinicians, 249 started the survey and 247 completed the primary outcomes (61% response rate). Many said they were only a little or not at all confident in diagnosing (70%) and managing care for (60%) CI, with specific gaps in confidence in distinguishing types of dementia and having CI-related conversations with patients or family/care partners. APCs reported lower confidence than physicians. Other barriers were lack of time, low usability of EHR, and lack of family/care partner availability. These did not differ by clinician type. Open-ended responses suggest clinicians would like more support for CI care. Low levels of confidence among other barriers suggest an urgent need to develop and implement effective multifaceted strategies to improve CI care.

State Abortion Policy and Moral Distress Among Clinicians Providing Abortion After the Dobbs Decision

Moral distress occurs when individuals feel powerless to do what they think is right, including when clinicians are prevented from providing health care they deem necessary. The loss of federal protections for abortion following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision may place clinicians providing abortion at risk of experiencing moral distress, as many could face new legal and civil penalties for providing care in line with professional standards and that they perceive as necessary. To assess self-reported moral distress scores among abortion-providing clinicians following the Dobbs decision overall and by state-level abortion policy. This survey study, conducted from May to December 2023, included US abortion-providing clinicians (physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and nurses). A purposive electronic survey was disseminated nationally through professional listservs and snowball sampling. Abortion policy in each respondent's state of practice (restrictive vs protective using classifications from the Guttmacher Institute). Using descriptive statistics and unadjusted and adjusted negative binomial regression models, the association between self-reported moral distress on the Moral Distress Thermometer (MDT), a validated psychometric tool that scores moral distress from 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible), and state abortion policy was examined. Overall, 310 clinicians (271 [87.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 41.4 [9.7] years) completed 352 MDTs, with 206 responses (58.5%) from protective states and 146 (41.5%) from restrictive states. Reported moral distress scores ranged from 0 to 10 (median, 5) and were more than double for clinicians in restrictive compared with protective states (median, 8 [IQR, 6-9] vs 3 [IQR, 1-6]; P < .001). Respondents with higher moral distress scores included physicians compared with advanced practice clinicians (median, 6 [IQR, 3-8] vs 4 [IQR, 2-7]; P = .005), those practicing in free-standing abortion clinics compared with those practicing in hospitals (median, 6 [IQR, 3-8] vs 4 [IQR, 2-7]; P < .001), those no longer providing abortion care compared with those still providing abortion care (median, 8 [IQR, 4-9] vs 5 [IQR, 2-8]; P = .004), those practicing in loss states (states with the greatest decline in abortion volume since the Dobbs decision) compared with those in stable states (unadjusted incidence rate [IRR], 1.72 [95% CI, 1.55-1.92]; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.40-1.79]; P < .001), and those practicing in surge states (states with the greatest increase in abortion volume since the Dobbs decision) compared with those in stable states (unadjusted IRR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.11-1.46]; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.09-1.41]; P = .001). In this purposive national survey study of clinicians providing abortion, moral distress was elevated among all clinicians and more than twice as high among those practicing in states that restrict abortion compared with those in states that protect abortion. The findings suggest that structural changes addressing bans on necessary health care, such as federal protections for abortion, are needed at institutional, state, and federal policy levels to combat widespread moral distress.

Tracking 5-Year Trends in the Workforce Prescribing Psychotropics and Medications for Opioid Use Disorder: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Although there is increased demand for behavioral health services, there is limited national data on the workforce prescribing psychotropics and/or medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and many current estimates are based on self-reported data or clinician rosters. To describe trends in the workforce prescribing psychotropics (i.e., antidepressants, antipsychotics, antianxiety medications, mood stabilizers) and/or MOUD from 2017 to 2021. Cross-sectional analysis of 2017-2021 IQVIA Xponent retail prescription claims data. Clinicians who prescribed more than ten total prescriptions for psychotropics and/or MOUD in a calendar year. We analyzed the number of prescriptions and prescribers by year, month, drug type, specialty type, payor type, and clinician county rurality. There was a 2.7% increase in the number of prescribers between 2017 and 2021, with the highest growth among psychiatric nurse practitioners (44.7%), nurse practitioners (25.5%), and physician assistants (6.5%). Primary care physicians (PCPs) and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) made up more than half of the workforce but prescribed 3.5 times fewer prescriptions on average compared to psychiatric and addiction medicine specialists. PCPs and APCs in rural areas wrote the most prescriptions collectively for psychotropics and MOUD per month. Using prescription data, a proxy for being active in the workforce, goes beyond specialty designation to identify the full workforce prescribing psychotropics and MOUD, including the growing role of APCs and PCPs.

Collaborative Care Cost-Sharing and Referral Rates in Colorado.

Collaborative care integrates mental health treatment into primary care and has been shown effective. Yet even in states where its use has been encouraged, take-up remains low and there are potential financial barriers to care. Describe patient out-of-pocket costs and variations in referral patterns for collaborative care in Colorado. Retrospective observational study using administrative medical claims data to identify outpatient visits with collaborative care. For individuals with ≥1 visit, we measure spending and visits at the month level. Among physicians with billings for collaborative care, we measure prevalence of eligible patients with collaborative care utilization. Patients with Medicare, Medicare Advantage, or commercial health insurance in Colorado, 2018-2019. Out-of-pocket costs (enrollee payments to clinicians), total spending (insurer+enrollee payments to clinicians), percent of patients billed collaborative care. Median total spending (insurer+patient cost) was $48.32 (IQR: $41-$53). Median out-of-pocket cost per month in collaborative care was $8.35 per visit (IQR: $0-$10). Patients with commercial insurance paid the most per month (median: $15); patients with Medicare Advantage paid the least (median: $0). Among clinicians billing for collaborative care (n=193), a mean of 12 percent of eligible patients utilized collaborative care; family practice and advanced practice clinicians' patients utilized it most often. Collaborative care remains underused with fewer than 1 in 6 potentially eligible patients receiving care in this setting. Out-of-pocket costs varied, though were generally low; uncertainty about costs may contribute to low uptake.

Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer

Since 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability. To determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities. This survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023. CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021. Questions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category. There were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs. These findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.

Identifying and Measuring Administrative Harms Experienced by Hospitalists and Administrative Leaders

Administrative harm (AH), defined as the adverse consequences of administrative decisions within health care that impact work structure, processes, and programs, is pervasive in medicine, yet poorly understood and described. To explore common AHs experienced by hospitalist clinicians and administrative leaders, understand the challenges that exist in identifying and measuring AH, and identify potential approaches to mitigate AH. A qualitative study using a mixed-methods approach with a 12-question survey and semistructured virtual focus groups was held on June 13 and August 11, 2023. Rapid qualitative methods including templated summaries and matrix analysis were applied. The participants included 2 consortiums comprising hospitalist clinicians, researchers, administrative leaders, and members of a patient and family advisory council. Quantitative data from the survey on specific aspects of experiences related to AH were collected. Focus groups were conducted using a semistructured focus group guide. Themes and subthemes were identified. Forty-one individuals from 32 different organizations participated in the focus groups, with 32 participants (78%) responding to a brief survey. Survey participants included physicians (91%), administrative professionals (6%), an advanced practice clinician (3%), and those in leadership roles (44%), with participants able to select more than one role. Only 6% of participants were familiar with the term administrative harm to a great extent, 100% felt that collaboration between administrators and clinicians is crucial for reducing AH, and 81% had personally participated in a decision that led to AH to some degree. Three main themes were identified: (1) AH is pervasive and comes from all levels of leadership, and the phenomenon was felt to be widespread and arose from multiple sources within health care systems; (2) organizations lack mechanisms for identification, measurement, and feedback, and these challenges stem from a lack of psychological safety, workplace cultures, and ambiguity in who owns a decision; and (3) organizational pressures were recognized as contributors to AHs. Many ideas were proposed as solutions. The findings of this study suggest that AH is widespread with wide-reaching impact, yet organizations do not have mechanisms to identify or address it.

Consistency is key: documentation distribution and efficiency in primary care.

We analyzed the degree to which daily documentation patterns in primary care varied and whether specific patterns, consistency over time, and deviations from clinicians' usual patterns were associated with note-writing efficiency. We used electronic health record (EHR) active use data from the Oracle Cerner Advance platform capturing hourly active documentation time for 498 physicians and advance practice clinicians (eg, nurse practitioners) for 65152 clinic days. We used k-means clustering to identify distinct daily patterns of active documentation time and analyzed the relationship between these patterns and active documentation time per note. We determined each primary care clinician's (PCC) modal documentation pattern and analyzed how consistency and deviations were related to documentation efficiency. We identified 8 distinct daily documentation patterns; the 3 most common patterns accounted for 80.6% of PCC-days and differed primarily in average volume of documentation time (78.1 minutes per day; 35.4 minutes per day; 144.6 minutes per day); associations with note efficiency were mixed. PCCs with >80% of days attributable to a single pattern demonstrated significantly more efficient documentation than PCCs with lower consistency; for high-consistency PCCs, days that deviated from their usual patterns were associated with less efficient documentation. We found substantial variation in efficiency across daily documentation patterns, suggesting that PCC-level factors like EHR facility and consistency may be more important than when documentation occurs. There were substantial efficiency returns to consistency, and deviations from consistent patterns were costly. Organizational leaders aiming to reduce documentation burden should pay specific attention to the ability for PCCs to execute consistent documentation patterns day-to-day.

Offering extended use of the contraceptive implant via an implementation science framework: a qualitative study of clinicians’ perceived barriers and facilitators

BackgroundThe etonogestrel contraceptive implant is currently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of pregnancy up to 3 years. However, studies that suggest efficacy up to 5 years. There is little information on the prevalence of extended use and the factors that influence clinicians in offering extended use. We investigated clinician perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to offering extended use of the contraceptive implant.MethodsUsing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants were recruited from a nationwide survey study of reproductive health clinicians on their knowledge and perspective of extended use of the contraceptive implant. To optimize the diversity of perspectives, we purposefully sampled participants from this study. We used content analysis and consensual qualitative research methods to inform our coding and data analysis. Themes arose deductively and inductively.ResultsWe interviewed 20 clinicians including advance practice clinicians, family medicine physicians, obstetrician/gynecologist and complex family planning sub-specialists. Themes regarding barriers and facilitators to extended use of the contraceptive implant emerged. Barriers included the FDA approval for 3 years and clinician concern about liability in the context of off-label use of the contraceptive implant. Educational materials and a champion of extended use were facilitators.ConclusionsThere is opportunity to expand access to extended use of the contraceptive implant by developing educational materials for clinicians and patients, identifying a champion of extended use, and providing information on extended use prior to replacement appointments at 3 years.

Clinical Outcomes of Orthopedic Surgery Co-Management by Internal Medicine Advanced Practice Clinicians: A Cohort Study

BackgroundComanagement of orthopedic surgery patients by internal medicine hospitalists is associated with improvements in clinical outcomes including complications, length of stay, and cost. Clinical outcomes of orthopedic comanagement performed solely by internal medicine advanced practice clinicians have not been reported. Our objecyive was to compare clinical outcomes between advanced practice clinician-based comanagement and usual orthopedic care. MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study in patients 18 years or older, hospitalized for orthopedic joint or spine surgery between May 1, 2014 and January 1, 2022. Outcomes assessed were length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, return to operating room, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and total direct cost, excluding surgical implants. Generalized boosted regression and propensity score weighting was used to compare clinical outcomes and health care cost between usual care and advanced practice clinician comanagement. ResultsAdvanced practice clinician comanagement was associated with a 5% reduction in mean length of stay (rate ratio = 0.95, P = .009), decreased odds of returning to the operating room (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, P = .002), and a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.32, P = .037) compared with usual orthopedic care in a weighted analysis. Need for ICU transfer was higher with advanced practice clinician comanagement (OR 1.54, P = .009), without significant differences in 30-day readmission or in-hospital mortality. ConclusionsWe observed reductions in length of stay, health care costs, return to the operating room, and 30-day mortality with advanced practice clinician comanagement compared with usual orthopedic care. Our findings suggest that advanced practice clinician-based comanagement may represent a safe and cost-effective model for orthopedic comanagement.

Clinician-Level Knowledge and Barriers to Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance

Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis is underused. Identifying potentially modifiable factors to address barriers in HCC surveillance is critical to improve patient outcomes. To evaluate clinician-level factors contributing to underuse of HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis. This survey study included primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterology and hepatology clinicians at 5 safety-net health systems in the US. Clinicians were surveyed from March 15 to September 15, 2023, to assess knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, perceived barriers, and COVID-19-related disruptions in HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis. Data were analyzed from October to November 2023. HCC surveillance knowledge was assessed with 6 questions querying the respondent's ability to correctly identify appropriate use of HCC surveillance. Attitudes, perceived barriers, and beliefs regarding HCC surveillance and perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions with HCC surveillance were assessed with a series of statements using a 4-point Likert scale and compared PCCs and gastroenterology and hepatology clinicians. Overall, 347 of 1362 clinicians responded to the survey (25.5% response rate), among whom 142 of 237 (59.9%) were PCCs, 48 of 237 (20.3%) gastroenterology and hepatology, 190 of 236 (80.5%) were doctors of medicine and doctors of osteopathic medicine, and 46 of 236 (19.5%) were advanced practice clinicians. On HCC knowledge assessment, 144 of 270 (53.3%) scored 5 or more of 6 questions correctly, 37 of 48 (77.1%) among gastroenterology and hepatology vs 65 of 142 (45.8%) among PCCs (P < .001). Those with higher HCC knowledge scores were less likely to report barriers to HCC surveillance. PCCs were more likely to report inadequate time to discuss HCC surveillance (37 of 139 [26.6%] vs 2 of 48 [4.2%]; P = .001), difficulty identifying patients with cirrhosis (82 of 141 [58.2%] vs 5 of 48 [10.4%]; P < .001), and were not up-to-date with HCC surveillance guidelines (87 of 139 [62.6%] vs 5 of 48 [10.4%]; P < .001) compared with gastroenterology and hepatology clinicians. While most acknowledged delays during the COVID-19 pandemic, 62 of 136 PCCs (45.6%) and 27 of 45 gastroenterology and hepatology clinicians (60.0%) reported that patients with cirrhosis could currently complete HCC surveillance without delays. In this survey study, important gaps in knowledge and perceived barriers to HCC surveillance were identified. Effective delivery of HCC education to PCCs and health system-level interventions must be pursued in parallel to address the complex barriers affecting suboptimal HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis.

HPNA Clinical Lecture Series - Advanced Practice Clinician Palliative Care Fellowship: A Leading-Edge Program

HPNA Clinical Lecture Series - Advanced Practice Clinician Palliative Care Fellowship: A Leading-Edge Program

Understanding what leaders can do to facilitate healthcare workers’ feeling valued: improving our knowledge of the strongest burnout mitigator

AimFeeling valued is a striking mitigator of burnout yet how to facilitate healthcare workers (HCWs) feeling valued has not been adequately studied. This study discovered factors relating to HCWs feeling...

Access to Specialty Care for Commercially Insured Youths With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Youths with type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for complications compared with peers with type 1 diabetes, though few studies have evaluated differences in access to specialty care. To compare claims with diabetes specialists for youths with type 1 vs type 2 diabetes and the association between specialist claims with multidisciplinary and acute care utilization. This cross-sectional study used Optum Clinformatics Data Mart commercial claims. Individuals included in the study were youths younger than 19 years with type 1 or 2 diabetes as determined by a validated algorithm and prescription claims. Data were collected for youths with at least 80% enrollment in a commercial health plan from December 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2022 to January 2024. The primary outcome was the number of ambulatory claims from an endocrine and/or diabetes physician or advanced practice clinician associated with a diabetes diagnosis code; secondary outcomes included multidisciplinary and acute care claims. Claims were analyzed for 4772 youths (mean [SD] age, 13.6 [3.7] years; 4300 [90.1%] type 1 diabetes; 472 [9.9%] type 2 diabetes; 2465 [51.7%] male; 128 [2.7%] Asian, 303 [6.4] Black or African American, 429 [9.0%] Hispanic or Latino, 3366 [70.5%] non-Hispanic White, and 546 [11.4%] unknown race and ethnicity). Specialist claims were lower in type 2 compared with type 1 diabetes (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.72]; P < .001) in propensity score-weighted analyses. The presence of a comorbidity was associated with increased specialist claims for type 1 diabetes (IRR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]) and decreased claims for type 2 diabetes (IRR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.87]). Pooling diagnosis groups and adjusted for covariates, each additional specialist claim was associated with increased odds of a claim with a diabetes care and education specialist (odds ratio [OR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.25-1.36]), dietitian (OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.09-1.19]), and behavioral health clinician (OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.12-1.20]). For acute care claims, each additional specialist claim was associated with increased odds of admission (OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.11-1.24]) but not for emergency claims (OR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98-1.82]). This cross-sectional study found that youths with type 2 diabetes were significantly less likely to have specialist claims despite insurance coverage, indicating other barriers to care, which may include medical complexity. Access to diabetes specialists influences engagement with multidisciplinary services. The association between increasing ambulatory clinician services and admissions suggests high utilization by a subgroup of patients at greater risk for poor outcomes.

Bridging the Gap: Evaluation of an Electrocardiogram Curriculum for Advanced Practice Clinicians.

Training programs for advanced practice providers (APP) often have significant variability in their curriculum, including electrocardiogram (ECG) education. Despite limitations in formal ECG training, APPs in the emergency department (ED) may be the first practitioner to interpret an ECG. Foundations of Emergency Medicine (FoEM) offers free, open-access curricula that are widely used for resident education. We sought to improve APP ECG interpretation skills by implementing the FoEM ECG I course. This was a single-site, pre- and post-intervention study of 23 APPs at our high-acuity, urban ED. In the fall of 2020, APP learners enrolled in a FoEM ECG I course led by faculty and senior resident instructors. The course consisted of six virtual, small-group, active-learning ECG workshops. Participants completed a 15-question multiple-choice test before, immediately after, and six months post-intervention to quantify knowledge acquisition. Additionally, a pre- and post-intervention knowledge, attitudes, and practices survey was administered on ECG interpretation skills and to evaluate the course. We evaluated change in ECG knowledge scores using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Changes in self-assessed knowledge were evaluated using an ordinal logistic mixed-effects regression. A total of 23 APPs enrolled in the course. Knowledge assessments showed APPs improved from the pre-test (median 9/15, interquartile range [IQR] 7-11) to the post-test (median 12/15, IQR 10-13; P = 0.001). Test scores did not significantly change from the post-test to the delayed post-test (median 12/15, IQR 12-13; P = 0.30). Respondents' subjective rating of their skill did not significantly change (P = 0.06). Respondents reported no change in their likelihood of approaching an attending when uncertain of the correct interpretation of an ECG (P = 0.16). Overall, 91% were satisfied with the course and 96% agreed that the course difficulty was appropriate. The FoEM ECG course provided a standardized curriculum that improved APP knowledge for interpreting ECGs. Despite this, the course did not alter APPs' willingness to approach physicians for guidance with interpretation of abnormal ECGs. These findings may inform expansion of this concept for other programs who desire formalized APP ECG education.

Abstract TMP45: Assessing Adaptations of a Complex Secondary Stroke Prevention Intervention

Introduction: S econdary stroke prevention by U niting C ommunity and C hronic care model teams E arly to E nd D isparities (SUCCEED) was a randomized trial of a multilevel complex intervention to enhance risk factor control after stroke. Subjects randomized to intervention were managed by an advanced practice clinician (APC)-community health worker (CHW) team. Within the framework of ≥3 clinic and ≥3 home visits, and Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) workshops, the team tailored the intervention to meet participants’ needs. To describe how the intervention was implemented and adapted, we used the form/function framework. Methods: We identified key domains (overall goals of intervention), motivating needs (importance of targeting each domain), functions (methods for addressing motivating needs), and forms (tools, resources, methods for accomplishing each function). Two study leaders conducted semi-structured interviews with 4 APCs and 4 CHWs to identify forms used. APCs and CHWs described how frequently they used each form and usefulness via a RedCap survey. Descriptive statistics were subsequently run with R version 4.2.3. Results: SUCCEED targeted 7 domains: medication adherence, stroke literacy, self-management skills, care coordination, healthcare system navigation, social support, and addressing barriers. Each domain had 1-7 motivating needs and 4-13 functions. Each function had 5-23 forms, resulting in a total of 365 forms for addressing all domains. Most providers (85%) reviewed medication bottles to assess medication adherence, strongly agreeing this was useful. Pill organizers and stickers were used 53% of the time to ensure patients knew what medications they should be taking; 71% strongly agreed this was useful. Providers identified physical/environmental/social/literacy barriers during both home visits and CDSMP workshops (71%); all providers found this combination helpful. Conclusion: The form/function framework is useful for describing real-world adaptations of complex interventions. We identified key aspects of the intervention that providers used frequently and found useful, to inform future development of secondary stroke prevention interventions.