Where are we now? Practice-Level Utilization of Nurse Practitioners in Comparison with State-Level Regulations

Background. Full practice authority for NPs is optimal for high-quality, cost-effective healthcare. However, a complete picture of utilization after states have adopted full practice authority needs to be determined. Objective. To review the evidence regarding practice-level utilization (PLU) of Nurse Practitioners (NP) PLU in comparison to state-level regulations (SLR). Data Sources. Studies published in English and based on US populations were identified through PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS (January 1, 1989 - December 31, 2018), and bibliographies of retrieved articles. Of the 419 articles identified with these limits, 19 (5%) met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Conclusions. Four categories of PLU were identified; billing practices, level of supervision, privileges, and prescriptive authority. Significant differences were seen between urban versus rural NPs and primary care versus specialty NPs. Thirteen of the 19 studies did not specifically address the state-level regulation of the included sample. Implications. No studies described the type of NP certification, practice specialty, utilization, and compared all to the SLR. There is a need for more evidence concerning PLU of NPs across the tiers of SLR. Only then can health care organizations, political leaders and other stakeholders, have the information needed to proceed with beneficial practice-model changes. Key Words. Nurse practitioner, full scope of practice, utilization, restriction, rol

Physician and Clinical Integration Among Rural Hospitals

The pressures for closer alignment between physicians and hospitals in both rural and urban areas are increasing. This study empirically specifies independent dimensions of physician and clinical integration and compares the extent to which such activities are practiced between rural and urban hospitals and among rural hospitals in different organizational and market contexts. Results suggest that both rural and urban hospitals practice physician integration, although each emphasizes different types of strategies. Second, urban hospitals engage in clinical integration with greater frequency than their rural counterparts. Finally, physician integration approaches in rural hospitals are more common among larger rural hospitals, those proximate to urban facilities, those with system affiliations, and those not under public control.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72074/1/j.1748-0361.1998.tb00637.x.pd

Interventions used to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: It is well recognized that patients with high blood pressure (hypertension) in the community frequently fail to meet treatment goals - a condition labeled as "uncontrolled" hypertension. The optimal way in which to organize and deliver care to patients who have hypertension so that they reach treatment goals has not been clearly identified. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension. To evaluate the effectiveness of reminders on improving the follow-up of patients with hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY: All-language search of all articles (any year) in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), Medline and Embase from June 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with hypertension that evaluated the following interventions: (1) self-monitoring (2) educational interventions directed to the patient (3) educational interventions directed to the health professional (4) health professional (nurse or pharmacist) led care (5) organisational interventions that aimed to improve the delivery of care (6) appointment reminder systems. Outcomes assessed were: (1) mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure( 2) control of blood pressure (3) proportion of patients followed up at clinic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data independently and in duplicate and assessed each study according to the criteria outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. MAIN RESULTS: 56 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of included studies was variable. An organized system of regular review allied to vigorous antihypertensive drug therapy was shown to reduce blood pressure (weighted mean difference -8.2/-4.2 mmHg, -11.7/-6.5 mmHg, -10.6/-7.6 mmHg for 3 strata of entry blood pressure) and all-cause mortality at five years follow-up (6.4% versus 7.8%, difference 1.4%) in a single large RCT- the Hypertension Detection and Follow-Up study. Other interventions had variable effects. Self-monitoring was associated with moderate net reduction in diastolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference (WMD): -2.0 mmHg, 95%CI: -2.7 to -1.4 mmHg, respectively. Appointment reminders increased the proportion of individuals who attended for follow-up. RCTs of educational interventions directed at patients or health professionals were heterogeneous but appeared unlikely to be associated with large net reductions in blood pressure by themselves. Health professional (nurse or pharmacist) led care may be a promising way of delivering care, with the majority of RCTs being associated with improved blood pressure control, but requires further evaluation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Family practices and community-based clinics need to have an organized system of regular follow-up and review of their hypertensive patients. Antihypertensive drug therapy should be implemented by means of a vigorous stepped care approach when patients do not reach target blood pressure levels