Implementation of an Advanced Practice Provider Service on an Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant Unit: Impact on Patient Outcomes

Examining the critical role of advanced practice providers on a multidisciplinary transplant team

It is well documented that Physician Assistants (PAs) and Nurse Practitioners (NPs), collectively known as Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), have a beneficial role beyond the field of primary care. APPs broad spectrum of knowledge make them particularly well suited for specializing in complex fields such as transplant. Variations in practice across transplant centers lead to questions regarding optimal use of APPs. Using job descriptions from transplant centers currently employing APPs, we sought to examine the critical role of transplant APPs beyond clinical care alone. In this review, we explore not only the general training of APPs and current utilization of APPs in transplant, but also safety, cost effectiveness, and comparison of APPs to other transplant providers. We aimed to highlight the importance of recruitment and retention of transplant specific trained APPs to provide continuity in transplant programs. Additionally, APPs expansion into transplant research, quality improvement, leadership, and management must be considered. We challenge transplant centers utilizing APPs to consider these important aspects when seeking ways to expand and optimize the critical role APPs provide on the transplant team.

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.