A comparison of outcomes of general medical inpatient care provided by a hospitalist-physician assistant model vs a traditional resident-based model

Comparison of hospitalist service staffing models at Baylor University Medical Center

Background

Baylor University Medical Center benefits from being a quaternary care center with 900+ licensed beds and multiple different models to staff patients on the hospitalist service. These models include hospitalist only, resident teaching teams, and two different advanced practice practitioner teams. The primary goal of this study was to assess these different staffing models and to ascertain which model, if any, has better outcomes related to length of stay, total hospital charges, 30-day readmission rates, patient satisfaction, hospital-acquired infections, mortality, and early discharges.

Methods

The study was an observational retrospective chart review of all discharges from the hospitalist service at Baylor University Medical Center from October 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022. Patients were included if the hospitalist team was the primary team of record at the time of discharge. A total of 7803 patients were included.

Results

There was no difference in patient satisfaction, hospital-acquired infections, and mortality between the groups. The teaching teams had a shorter length of stay before the removal of outliers. Independent advanced practice practitioners reliably had more patients discharged before 11:30 am. Results support the concept of continuity of care, as well as lower patient-to-provider ratios.

Conclusions

These results have actionable implications that support the use of different advanced practice practitioner teams for the safe care of hospitalized patients as well as the safe integration of residents into patient care.

The changing employment of physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician associates/assistants

ABSTRACT

Information on the employment of patient-care clinicians is needed for policy planning and human resource management. The 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data were probed for occupational settings of 698,700 physicians and surgeons, 246,690 nurse practitioners (NPs), and 139,100 physician associates/assistants (PAs). These three health care professionals accounted for approximately 1.1 million medical and surgical clinicians serving a US population of 331.5 million. Clinician demographics differ-in 2021, the median age of physicians was 45 years; NPs, 43 years; and PAs, 39 years. The largest employment location is "office of a physician" (physician, 53%; NP, 47%; PA, 51%), followed by hospitals (physician, 25%; NP, 25%; PA, 23%), and outpatient centers (physician, 4%; NP, 9%; PA, 10%). The 10-year job outlook predicts physician growth at 3%, NPs at 46%, and PAs at 28%. NP and PA employment is growing more than physicians because of constrained physician postgraduate education funding. Other factors influencing employment changes include medical practice mergers, the rising value of team-based care, the cost of new medical schools, and task shifting.

The changing employment of physicians, NPs, and PAs

ABSTRACT

Information on the employment of patient-care clinicians is needed for policy planning and human resource management. The 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) employment data were probed for occupational settings of 698,700 physicians and surgeons, 246,690 NPs, and 139,100 physician associates/assistants (PAs). These three healthcare professionals accounted for about 1.1 million medical and surgical clinicians serving a US population of 331.5 million. Clinician demographics differ-in 2021, the median age of physicians was 45 years; NPs, 43 years; and PAs, 39 years. The largest employment location is "office of a physician" (physician, 53%; NP, 47%; PA, 51%), followed by hospitals (physician, 25%; NP, 25%; PA, 23%), and outpatient centers (physician, 4%; NP, 9%; PA, 10%). The 10-year job outlook predicts physician growth at 3%, NPs at 46%, and PAs at 28%. NP and PA employment is growing more than that of physicians because of constrained physician postgraduate education funding. Other factors influencing employment changes include medical practice mergers, the rising value of team-based care, the cost of new medical schools, and task shifting.

Patterns of utilization and evaluation of advanced practice providers on academic hospital medicine teams: A national survey

This survey study aimed to provide a contemporary appraisal of advanced practice provider (APP) practice and to summarize perceptions of the benefits and challenges of integrating APPs into adult academic hospital medicine (HM) groups. We surveyed leaders of academic HM groups. We received responses from 43 of 86 groups (50%) surveyed. Thirty-four (79%) reported that they employed APPs. In most groups (85%), APPs were reported to perform daily tasks of patient care, including rounding and documentation. Less than half of the groups reported that APPs had completed HM-specific postgraduate training. The reported benefits of APPs included improved perceived quality of care and greater volume of patients that could be seen. Reported challenges included training requirements and support for new hires. Further investigation is needed to determine which APP team structures deliver the highest quality care. There may be a role for expanding standardized competency-based postgraduate training for APPs planning to practice HM.

A novel inpatient PA staffing model for a community hospital

OBJECTIVE

We sought to create a novel physician assistant (PA) and physician hospital medicine co-management strategy, employing a 3:1 PA:physician structure, under which the physician oversees all PA patients, but without a separate independent panel.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort pre-post design, comparing metrics for a traditional physician-only hospitalist model with a PA-physician team model. Outcomes included length of stay (LOS), readmissions, discharge destination, patient satisfaction, and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

LOS for patients under the PA-physician model (74 hours) was lower than for the physician-only model (83 hours; P < .001). The PA-physician model team discharged more patients home than to another facility (PA-physician 77.6%, physician-only 74.3%; P = .03). Thirty-day readmissions were about 10% (P = .97) and patients reported respectful treatment in about 80% (P = .53) of cases in each cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 3:1 PA-physician model team showed equal to superior outcomes compared with the physician-only hospitalist model.

The cost-effectiveness of physician assistants/associates: A systematic review of international evidence

BACKGROUND

The global utilization of the physician assistant/associate (PA) is growing. Their increasing presence is in response to the rising demands of demographic changes, new developments in healthcare, and physician shortages. While PAs are present on four continents, the evidence of whether their employment contributes to more efficient healthcare has not been assessed in the aggregate. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on PA cost-effectiveness as compared to physicians. Cost-effectiveness was operationalized as quality, accessibility, and the cost of care.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Literature to June 2021 was searched across five biomedical databases and filtered for eligibility. Publications that met the inclusion criteria were categorized by date, country, design, and results by three researchers independently. All studies were screened with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBIN-I) tool. The literature search produced 4,855 titles, and after applying criteria, 39 studies met inclusion (34 North America, 4 Europe, 1 Africa). Ten studies had a prospective design, and 29 were retrospective. Four studies were assessed as biased in results reporting. While most studies included a small number of PAs, five studies were national in origin and assessed the employment of a few hundred PAs and their care of thousands of patients. In 34 studies, the PA was employed as a substitute for traditional physician services, and in five studies, the PA was employed in a complementary role. The quality of care delivered by a PA was comparable to a physician's care in 15 studies, and in 18 studies, the quality of care exceeded that of a physician. In total, 29 studies showed that both labor and resource costs were lower when the PA delivered the care than when the physician delivered the care.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the studies were of good methodological quality, and the results point in the same direction; PAs delivered the same or better care outcomes as physicians with the same or less cost of care. Sometimes this efficiency was due to their reduced labor cost and sometimes because they were more effective as producers of care and activity.

Differences in length of stay by teaching team status in an academic medical center in the Midwestern United States

Background: Given the high cost of inpatient stays, hospital systems are investigating ways to decrease lengths of stay while ensuring high-quality care. The goal of this study was to determine if patients in teaching teams (hospitalist teams with residents and interns) had a higher length of stay after adjusting for relevant confounders compared to hospitalist-only teams (staffed only by attending physicians).Methods: Using a retrospective design, we investigated differences in length of stay for 17,577 inpatient encounters over a 2-year period. Length of stay was calculated based on the time between hospital admission and hospital discharge with no removal of outliers. Encounters were assigned to teams based on the discharge provider. Teams were grouped based on whether they were teaching teams or nonteaching teams. Since the length of stay was not normally distributed, it was modeled first using generalized linear models with gamma distribution and log link, and secondly by quantile regression. Models were adjusted for age, gender, race, medicine vs. non-medicine unit, MS-DRGs, and comorbidities.Results: Using gamma models to account for the skewed nature of the data, the length of stay for encounters assigned to teaching teams was 0.56 days longer (β = 0.10 95% CI 0.06 0.14) than for nonteaching teams after adjustment. Using quantile regression, teaching teams had encounters on average 0.63 days longer (95% CI 0.44 0.81) than nonteaching teams at the 75^th percentile and 1.19 days longer (95% CI 0.77 1.61) compared to nonteaching teams at the 90^th percentile after adjustment.Conclusions: After adjusting for demographics and clinical factors, teaching teams on average had lengths of stay that were over half day longer than nonteaching teams. In addition, for the longest encounters, differences between teaching and nonteaching teams were over 1-day difference. Given these results, process improvement opportunities exist within teaching teams regarding length of stay, particularly for longer encounters.

Comparison of Resident, Advanced Practice Clinician, and Hospitalist Teams in an Academic Medical Center: Association With Clinical Outcomes and Resource Utilization

BACKGROUND

Academic medical centers have expanded their inpatient medicine services with advanced practice clinicians (APCs) or nonteaching hospitalists in response to patient volumes, residency work hour restrictions, and recently, COVID-19. Reports of clinical outcomes, cost, and resource utilization differ among inpatient team structures.

OBJECTIVE

Directly compare outcomes among resident, APC, and solo hospitalist inpatient general medicine teams.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using multivariable analysis adjusted for time of admission, interhospital transfer, and comorbidities that compares clinical outcomes, cost, and resource utilization.

SUBJECTS

Patients 18 years or older discharged from an inpatient medicine service between July 2015 and July 2018 (N = 12,716).

MAIN MEASURES

Length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, inpatient mortality, normalized total direct cost, discharge time, and consultation utilization.

KEY RESULTS

Resident teams admitted fewer patients at night (32.0%; P < .001) than did APC (49.5%) and hospitalist (48.6%) teams. APCs received nearly 4% more outside transfer patients (P = .015). Hospitalists discharged patients 26 minutes earlier than did residents (mean hours after midnight [95% CI], 14.58 [14.44-14.72] vs 15.02 [14.97-15.08]). Adjusted consult utilization was 15% higher for APCs (adjusted mean consults per admission [95% CI], 1.00 [0.96-1.03]) and 8% higher for residents (0.93 [0.90-0.95]) than it was for hospitalists (0.85 [0.80-0.90]). No differences in LOS, readmission, mortality, or cost were observed between the teams.

CONCLUSION

We observed similar costs, LOS, 30-day readmission, and mortality among hospitalist, APC, and resident teams. Our results suggest clinical outcomes are not significantly affected by team structure. The addition of APC or hospitalist teams represent safe and effective alternatives to traditional inpatient resident teams.

Comparison of the Outcome of Patient Management with Physician Extenders Only and with both Residents and Extenders

This was a retrospective study that aimed to determine the treatment outcome of patients seen in the trauma unit of the Johnson City Medical Center (JCMC). The study included 2844 patients in the trauma registry and evaluated age, sex, injury severity score (ISS), length of stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit (ICU), overall hospital lengths of stay (LOS), ventilator days, discharge disposition, and complications between one group managed by extenders only and the second managed by both residents and extenders. The sample size of the two groups was similar (group one = 1446 and group two = 1398) and the proportions of males and females in the two groups were identical (males = 65%, females = 35%). Both groups had similar mechanisms of injury, although group one had a higher percentage of falls (32.9% vs. 22.03%) and group two had a higher proportion of motor vehicle crash (MVC) traumas (40.41% vs 30%). There was no significant difference in those discharged home and deaths between the two groups. (χ²(1, N = 2258) = 0.04, p = 0.82). Complications showed statistical significance when looking at extenders vs. residents plus extenders for all complications (χ²(7, N = 196) = 38.73, p ≤ 0.0001). It is possible that having extenders only versus both extenders and residents had no significant difference among the patient outcomes based on the variables age, sex, ISS, ICU days, overall hospital LOS, and ventilator days; however, when observing complications between the two groups, it is possible that patients are more likely to have complications due to overall hospital LOS in the residents plus extenders group.

Demonstrating advanced practice provider value: Implementing a new advanced practice provider billing algorithm

BACKGROUND

Rapid changes in health care are driving the adjustment of work flow by which providers serve patients in team-based care. Specifically, there is a need to develop more effective and efficient utilization with accurate attribution of advanced practice providers' (APPs) productivity.

LOCAL PROBLEM

The Directors of the APP-Best Practice Center conducted assessments of each clinical area at MUSC Health, a large academic medical center. A knowledge gap was identified, not only regarding billing practices of the APPs (nurse practitioners/physician assistants) but also in the utilization of APPs to practice to the fullest extent of their license, education, and experience.

METHODS

By substantiating APPs' contribution margin through the process of implementing a new standardized APP billing algorithm, a change in practice was accepted by senior leadership and a new APP billing algorithm was built while following updated practice laws, compliance/legal standards, and hospital bylaws/regulations.

INTERVENTIONS

A new billing algorithm was implemented on July 1, 2017, and outcomes were evaluated 12 months after implementation.

RESULTS

This project uncovered the work already performed by APPs while increasing relative value units, collections, and overall patient encounters by the APP/physician team. Findings suggest improved utilization and appropriate attribution of productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

With the APP work force growing, the implementation of electronic medical record systems, and today's health care financial constraints, it is imperative that health care systems standardize their billing practices. The APP billing algorithm is a critical tool that will help to meet this demand.

Demonstrating advanced practice provider value: Implementing a new advanced practice provider billing algorithm

BACKGROUND

Rapid changes in healthcare are driving the adjustment of work flow by which providers serve patients in team-based care. Specifically, there is a need to develop more effective and efficient utilization with accurate attribution of advanced practice providers' (APPs) productivity.

LOCAL PROBLEM

The directors of the APP-Best Practice Center conducted assessments of each clinical area at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Health, a large academic medical center. A knowledge gap was identified, not only regarding billing practices of the APPs (NPs and physician assistants) but also in the use of APPs to practice to the fullest extent of their license, education, and experience.

METHODS

By substantiating APPs' contribution margin through the process of implementing a new standardized APP billing algorithm, a change in practice was accepted by senior leadership and a new APP billing algorithm was built that follows updated practice laws, compliance/legal standards, and hospital bylaws and regulations.

INTERVENTIONS

A new billing algorithm was implemented on July 1, 2017, and outcomes were evaluated 12 months after implementation.

RESULTS

This project uncovered the work already performed by APPs while increasing relative value units, collections, and overall patient encounters by the APP/physician team. Findings suggest improved utilization and appropriate attribution of productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

With the APP workforce growing, the implementation of electronic medical record systems, and today's healthcare financial constraints, healthcare systems must standardize their billing practices. The APP billing algorithm is a critical tool that will help to meet this demand.

Impact of hospitalists on the efficiency of inpatient care and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Over the past 20 years, hospitalists have assumed a greater portion of healthcare service for hospitalized patients. This was mainly due to reducing the length of stay (LOS) and hospital costs shown by many studies. In contrast, other studies suggested increased cost and resources utilization associated with hospitalist-run care models. Aim: We aimed to provide class 1 evidence regarding the effect of hospitalist-run care models on the efficiency of care and patient satisfaction. Design: Meta-analysis. Methods: Four electronic medical databases were searched to retrieve all relevant studies. Two authors screened titles and abstracts of search results for eligibility according to predefined criteria. Initially eligible studies were screened for full text inclusion. Included studies were reviewed for data on LOS, hospital cost, readmission, mortality, and patient satisfaction. Available data were abstracted and analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis. Results: Sixty-one studies were included for analysis. The overall effect size favored hospitalist-run care models in terms of LOS (MD = -0.67 day, 95% CI [-0.78, -0.56], p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of hospital cost (MD = $92.1, 95% CI [-910.4, 1094.6], p = 0.86) whereas patient satisfaction was similar or even better in hospitalist compared to non-hospitalist (NH) service. Conclusion: Our analysis showed that hospitalist care is associated with decreased LOS and increased patient satisfaction compared to NH. This indicates an increase in the efficiency of care that does not come at the expense of care quality.

The effects of substitution of hospital ward care from medical doctors to physician assistants on non-adherence to guidelines on medication prescribing

AIM

This study determined the effect of substitution of inpatient care from medical doctors (MDs) to physician assistants (PAs) on non-adherence to guidelines on medication prescribing.

METHODS

A multicenter matched-controlled study was performed comparing wards on which PAs provide medical care in collaboration with MDs (PA/MD model), with wards on which only MDs provide medical care (MD model). A set of 17 quality indicators to measure non-adherence to guidelines on medication prescribing by PAs and MDs was composed by 14 experts in a modified Delphi procedure. The indicators covered different pharmacotherapeutic subjects, such as gastric protection in case of use of NSAID or prevention of obstipation in case of use of opioids. These indicators were expressed in proportions by dividing the number of patients in which the prescriber did not adhere to a guideline, by all patients that were applicable. Multivariable regression analysis was performed in order to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

1021 patients from 17 hospital wards in the 'PA/MD model' group and 1286 patients from 17 hospital wards in the 'MD model' group were included. Two of the 17 quality indicators showed significantly less non-adherence to guidelines for the PA/MD model; the indicators concerning prescribing gastric protection in case of use of NSAID in combination with corticosteroids (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.90) and in case of use of NSAID in patients older than 70 years (OR 0.47, 95% 0.23-0.95). For none of the other quality indicators for prescribing of medication a difference between the MD model and the PA/MD model was found.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the non-adherence to guidelines on medication prescribing on wards with the PA/MD model does not differ from wards with traditional house staffing by MDs only. Further research is needed to determine quality, efficiency and safety of prescribing behavior of PAs.

Accreditation and implications of clinical postgraduate PA training programs

No consensus definition exists for postgraduate physician assistant (PA) training. This report from the AAPA Task Force on Accreditation of Postgraduate PA Training Programs describes the types of clinical training programs and their effects on hiring and compensation of PAs. Although completing a postgraduate program appears to have no effect on compensation, PAs who complete these programs may be favored in the hiring process and frequently report greater confidence in their skills. More research is needed and program accreditation is key to monitoring the effectiveness of these programs.

NP and PA Privileging in Acute Care Settings: Do Scope of Practice Laws Matter?

As hospitals’ interest in nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) grows, their leadership is eager to know how their medical staffing privileging policies for these professionals compare to peer hospitals. This study assesses the extent of variation of these policies in four clinical areas and examines whether the differences are associated with state scope of practice laws for NPs and PAs. We also examine the relationship of NP and PA privileging policies to each other. Our analysis finds no evidence that hospital privileging is associated with state scope of practice, and indeed within-state variation is more significant than cross-state variation. We also find a strong correlation between NP and PA privileging in all four clinical areas. These results suggest the need for additional research to understand the institutional-level variables and human dynamics at the level of medical staffing committees that may explain the dramatic variation in privileging policies and, ultimately, the effects of different privileging levels on costs and quality.

Association of Hospitalist Years of Experience With Mortality in the Hospitalized Medicare Population

IMPORTANCE

Substantial numbers of hospitalists are fresh graduates of residency training programs. Current data about the effect of hospitalist years of experience on patient outcomes are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the association of hospitalist years of experience with 30-day mortality and hospital mortality of their patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We used a 5% sample of national Medicare data of patient and hospital characteristics to build a multilevel logistic regression model to predict mortality as a function of years of experience of the hospitalists. We created 2 cohorts. The first was a cross-sectional cohort of 21 612 hospitalists working between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014, with a 5-year look-back period to assess their years of prior experience as a hospitalist, and the second was a longitudinal cohort of 3860 hospitalists in their first year of practice between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2011, who continued practicing hospital medicine for at least 4 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Thirty-day postadmission mortality adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics in a 3-level logistic regression model. Hospital mortality was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Among 21 612 hospitalists caring for Medicare inpatients from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014, 5445 (25%) had 1 year of experience or less, while 11 596 (54%) had 4 years of experience or more. We then identified 3860 physicians in their first year as hospitalists who continued to practice as hospitalists for 4 years. There was a significant association between hospitalist experience and mortality. Observed 30-day mortality was 10.50% for patients of first-year hospitalists vs 9.97% for patients of hospitalists in their second year. The mortality odds for patients of second-year hospitalists were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) compared with patients of first-year hospitalists. Observed hospital mortality was 3.33% for patients cared for by first-year hospitalists vs 2.96% for second-year hospitalists. (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95). For both 30-day and hospital mortality, there was little change in odds of mortality between the second year and subsequent years of experience.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Patients cared for by hospitalists in their first year of practice experience higher mortality. Early-career hospitalists may require additional support to ensure optimal outcomes for their patients.

The impact of the implementation of physician assistants in inpatient care: A multicenter matched-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Medical care for admitted patients in hospitals is increasingly reallocated to physician assistants (PAs). There is limited evidence about the consequences for the quality and safety of care. This study aimed to determine the effects of substitution of inpatient care from medical doctors (MDs) to PAs on patients' length of stay (LOS), quality and safety of care, and patient experiences with the provided care.

METHODS

In a multicenter matched-controlled study, the traditional model in which only MDs are employed for inpatient care (MD model) was compared with a mixed model in which besides MDs also PAs are employed (PA/MD model). Thirty-four wards were recruited across the Netherlands. Patients were followed from admission till one month after discharge. Primary outcome measure was patients' LOS. Secondary outcomes concerned eleven indicators for quality and safety of inpatient care and patients' experiences with the provided care.

RESULTS

Data on 2,307 patients from 34 hospital wards was available. The involvement of PAs was not significantly associated with LOS (β 1.20, 95%CI 0.99-1.40, p = .062). None of the indicators for quality and safety of care were different between study arms. However, the involvement of PAs was associated with better experiences of patients (β 0.49, 95% CI 0.22-0.76, p = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not find differences regarding LOS and quality of care between wards on which PAs, in collaboration with MDs, provided medical care for the admitted patients, and wards on which only MDs provided medical care. Employing PAs seems to be safe and seems to lead to better patient experiences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01835444.

The involvement of physician assistants in inpatient care in hospitals in the Netherlands: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of substitution of inpatient care from medical doctors (MDs) to physician assistants (PAs).

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis embedded within a multicentre, matched-controlled study. The traditional model in which only MDs are employed for inpatient care (MD model) was compared with a mixed model in which, besides MDs, PAs are also employed (PA/MD model).

SETTING

34 hospital wards across the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

2292 patients were followed from admission until 1 month after discharge. Patients receiving daycare, terminally ill patients and children were excluded.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

All direct healthcare costs from day of admission until 1 month after discharge. Health outcome concerned quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which was measured with the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D).

RESULTS

We found no significant difference for QALY gain (+0.02, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.05) when comparing the PA/MD model with the MD model. Total costs per patient did not significantly differ between the groups (+€568, 95% CI -€254 to €1391, p=0.175). Regarding the costs per item, a difference of €309 per patient (95% CI €29 to €588, p=0.030) was found in favour of the MD model regarding length of stay. Personnel costs per patient for the provider who is primarily responsible for medical care on the ward were lower on the wards in the PA/MD model (-€11, 95% CI -€16 to -€6, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the cost-effectiveness on wards managed by PAs, in collaboration with MDs, is similar to the care on wards with traditional house staffing. The involvement of PAs may reduce personnel costs, but not overall healthcare costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01835444.

Musculoskeletal Workforce Needs: Are Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners the Solution? AOA Critical Issues

Growth estimates and demographic shifts of the population of the United States foreshadow a future heightened demand for musculoskeletal care. Although many articles have discussed this growing demand on the musculoskeletal workforce, few address the inevitable need for more musculoskeletal care providers. As we are unable to increase the number of orthopaedic surgeons because of restrictions on graduate medical education slots, physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) represent one potential solution to the impending musculoskeletal care supply shortage. This American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) symposium report investigates models for advanced practice provider integration, considers key issues affecting PAs and NPs, and proposes guidelines to help to assess the logistical and educational possibilities of further incorporating NPs and PAs into the orthopaedic workforce in order to address future musculoskeletal care needs.

Physician assistants in medical ward care: a descriptive study of the situation in the Netherlands

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Medical ward care has been increasingly reallocated from medical doctors (MDs) to physician assistants (PAs). Insight into their roles and tasks is limited. This study aims to provide insight into different organizational models of medical ward care, focusing on the position, tasks and responsibilities of the involved PAs and MDs.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional descriptive study 34 hospital wards were included. Characteristics of the organizational models were collected from the heads of departments. We documented provider continuity by examination of work schedules. MDs and PAs in charge for medical ward care (n = 179) were asked to complete a questionnaire to measure workload, supervision and tasks performed.

RESULTS

We distinguished four different organizational models for ward care: medical specialists in charge of admitted patients (100% MS), medical residents in charge (100% MR), PAs in charge (100% PA), both MRs and PAs in charge (mixed PA/MR). The wards with PAs had the highest provider continuity. PAs spend relatively more time on direct patient care; MDs spend relatively more time on indirect patient care. PAs spend more hours on quality projects (P = 0.000), while MDs spend more time on scientific research (P = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

Across different organizational models for medical ward care, we found variations in time per task, time per bed and provider continuity. Further research should focus on the impact of these differences on outcomes and efficiency of medical ward care.

Patient outcomes in teaching versus nonteaching general internal medicine services: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Patient care quality appears to be similar when delivered by trainee and attending physicians. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine whether outcomes differ for general internal medicine (GIM) patients admitted to teaching versus nonteaching services.

METHOD

The authors searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases in May 2012 to identify peer-reviewed, English-language studies with contemporaneous controls comparing inpatient mortality, 30-day readmission rate, and/or length of stay (LOS) for inpatients admitted to teaching or nonteaching GIM services.

RESULTS

The 15 included studies (1 randomized controlled trial, 14 observational) included 108,570 patients admitted to U.S. hospitals during 1987-2011. Inpatient mortality did not differ between teaching and nonteaching services (13 studies, 108,015 patients; 2.5% versus 2.8%; OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.87-1.32; I = 82%); results were consistent in risk-adjusted studies (adjusted OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.08) and higher-quality studies (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.73-1.21). There were no differences in 30-day readmission rates (11 studies, 106,021 patients; 15.1% versus 13.1%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18). Patients on teaching services appeared to have longer LOS (11 studies, 82,352 patients; unadjusted mean difference, 0.40 days; 95% CI, 0.04-0.77 days), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I = 95%). Differences disappeared in risk-adjusted studies (mean difference: -0.09 days; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.06 days) and in higher-quality studies (mean difference: -0.05 days; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.28 days).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no convincing evidence that outcomes differed substantively for patients admitted to teaching or nonteaching GIM services.

Learning needs of physician assistants working in hospital medicine

BACKGROUND

Hospital Medicine is growing rapidly, and the number of physician assistants (PAs) in this field is expected to grow. However, there is no available data related to the learning needs of PA hospitalists.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a needs assessment for PA hospitalists who may be embarking on a hospitalist career.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey based on the Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A sample of hospitalist PAs working in the United States.

MEASUREMENTS

Amount of experience with core diagnoses and procedures, preferences for additional training that would have prepared them to function as hospitalist PAs.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine PAs responded (response rate, 67%). Among the core clinical conditions, respondents had the most experience in managing diabetes and urinary tract infections and were least experienced with health care-associated pneumonias and sepsis syndrome. Over 90% rarely performed core competency procedures other than electrocardiogram and chest X-ray interpretations. The top 3 content areas that PA hospitalists believed would have helped to better prepare them to care for inpatients were palliative care (percent of PAs who agreed or strongly agreed: 85%), nutrition for hospitalized patients (84%), and consultations (64%). Almost all (91%) indicated that they would have been interested in formal postgraduate hospital medicine training even if it meant having a lower stipend during the first year on the job.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first national data on self-perceived learning needs of PA hospitalists. The results may prove helpful for both PAs entering hospitalist careers and for the physician groups looking to hire them.