美国成人重症监护病房高级实践提供者的可用性:一项调查。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Deena Kelly Costa, Danny Lizano, Allan Garland, Robert Fowler, Vincent X Liu, Damon C Scales, Hannah Wunsch, Hayley B Gershengorn
{"title":"美国成人重症监护病房高级实践提供者的可用性:一项调查。","authors":"Deena Kelly Costa, Danny Lizano, Allan Garland, Robert Fowler, Vincent X Liu, Damon C Scales, Hannah Wunsch, Hayley B Gershengorn","doi":"10.4037/ajcc2025655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>How advanced practice providers (APPs) are deployed in adult US intensive care units (ICUs) is understudied. Further, whether state-level restrictions on practice affect the availability of these providers is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To describe staffing patterns of ICU APPs (nurse practitioners, physician assistants) in the context of physicians-in-training (interns, residents, fellows) and to explore the association between state-level APP practice restrictions and employment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from a national survey of pre-COVID-19 (steady-state) ICU staffing linked to the 2020 American Hospital Association survey were used to examine staffing patterns (via descriptive statistics) and to explore the association of state-level practice restrictions with the presence of APPs in ICUs (via multivariable regression).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort included 588 adult ICUs, of which 336 (57.1%) reported both APPs and physicians-in-training, 124 (21.1%) APPs only, 73 (12.4%) physicians-in-training only, and 55 (9.4%) neither. Units with both provider types were more commonly surgical ICUs (17.6% vs ≤9.6%; P < .001), whereas those with neither were 98.2% mixed units. Those units with neither were smaller and more often in smaller, nonteaching, for-profit hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas. Two hundred twenty-five ICUs (38.3%) were in states allowing full APP practice scope. After adjustment, the odds of employing APPs were nonsignificantly higher in ICUs in full-practice states.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both APPs and physicians-in-training are commonly deployed in US adult ICUs, often together. Laws limiting practice scope may impede deployment of these providers in ICUs.</p>","PeriodicalId":7607,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Critical Care","volume":"34 4","pages":"285-292"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Availability of Advanced Practice Providers in Adult Intensive Care Units in the United States: A Survey.\",\"authors\":\"Deena Kelly Costa, Danny Lizano, Allan Garland, Robert Fowler, Vincent X Liu, Damon C Scales, Hannah Wunsch, Hayley B Gershengorn\",\"doi\":\"10.4037/ajcc2025655\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>How advanced practice providers (APPs) are deployed in adult US intensive care units (ICUs) is understudied. Further, whether state-level restrictions on practice affect the availability of these providers is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To describe staffing patterns of ICU APPs (nurse practitioners, physician assistants) in the context of physicians-in-training (interns, residents, fellows) and to explore the association between state-level APP practice restrictions and employment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from a national survey of pre-COVID-19 (steady-state) ICU staffing linked to the 2020 American Hospital Association survey were used to examine staffing patterns (via descriptive statistics) and to explore the association of state-level practice restrictions with the presence of APPs in ICUs (via multivariable regression).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort included 588 adult ICUs, of which 336 (57.1%) reported both APPs and physicians-in-training, 124 (21.1%) APPs only, 73 (12.4%) physicians-in-training only, and 55 (9.4%) neither. Units with both provider types were more commonly surgical ICUs (17.6% vs ≤9.6%; P < .001), whereas those with neither were 98.2% mixed units. Those units with neither were smaller and more often in smaller, nonteaching, for-profit hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas. Two hundred twenty-five ICUs (38.3%) were in states allowing full APP practice scope. After adjustment, the odds of employing APPs were nonsignificantly higher in ICUs in full-practice states.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both APPs and physicians-in-training are commonly deployed in US adult ICUs, often together. Laws limiting practice scope may impede deployment of these providers in ICUs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7607,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Critical Care\",\"volume\":\"34 4\",\"pages\":\"285-292\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2025655\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2025655","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:如何先进的实践提供者(app)部署在成人美国重症监护病房(ICUs)尚未充分研究。此外,尚不清楚州一级对实践的限制是否会影响这些提供者的可用性。目的:描述在培训医师(实习生、住院医师、研究员)背景下ICU APP(执业护士、医师助理)的人员配置模式,并探讨国家级APP执业限制与就业之间的关系。方法:使用与2020年美国医院协会调查相关的covid -19前(稳态)ICU人员配备的全国调查数据来检查人员配备模式(通过描述性统计),并探讨州一级实践限制与ICU中app存在的关系(通过多变量回归)。结果:该队列包括588名成人icu,其中336名(57.1%)同时报告了app和培训医师,124名(21.1%)仅报告了app, 73名(12.4%)仅报告了培训医师,55名(9.4%)均未报告。两种提供者类型的单位更常见的是外科icu (17.6% vs≤9.6%;P < 0.001),而两者均无者为98.2%的混合单位。那些两者都没有的单位规模较小,而且更多的是在非大都市地区的小型、非教学的营利性医院。225个icu(38.3%)位于允许完全APP实践范围的州。调整后,在全面实践状态下,icu采用app的几率无显著性增高。结论:app和实习医师在美国成人icu中普遍部署,通常是一起部署。限制实践范围的法律可能会阻碍这些提供者在icu中的部署。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Availability of Advanced Practice Providers in Adult Intensive Care Units in the United States: A Survey.

Background: How advanced practice providers (APPs) are deployed in adult US intensive care units (ICUs) is understudied. Further, whether state-level restrictions on practice affect the availability of these providers is unknown.

Objectives: To describe staffing patterns of ICU APPs (nurse practitioners, physician assistants) in the context of physicians-in-training (interns, residents, fellows) and to explore the association between state-level APP practice restrictions and employment.

Methods: Data from a national survey of pre-COVID-19 (steady-state) ICU staffing linked to the 2020 American Hospital Association survey were used to examine staffing patterns (via descriptive statistics) and to explore the association of state-level practice restrictions with the presence of APPs in ICUs (via multivariable regression).

Results: The cohort included 588 adult ICUs, of which 336 (57.1%) reported both APPs and physicians-in-training, 124 (21.1%) APPs only, 73 (12.4%) physicians-in-training only, and 55 (9.4%) neither. Units with both provider types were more commonly surgical ICUs (17.6% vs ≤9.6%; P < .001), whereas those with neither were 98.2% mixed units. Those units with neither were smaller and more often in smaller, nonteaching, for-profit hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas. Two hundred twenty-five ICUs (38.3%) were in states allowing full APP practice scope. After adjustment, the odds of employing APPs were nonsignificantly higher in ICUs in full-practice states.

Conclusions: Both APPs and physicians-in-training are commonly deployed in US adult ICUs, often together. Laws limiting practice scope may impede deployment of these providers in ICUs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
103
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The editors of the American Journal of Critical Care (AJCC) invite authors to submit original manuscripts describing investigations, advances, or observations from all specialties related to the care of critically and acutely ill patients. Papers promoting collaborative practice and research are encouraged. Manuscripts will be considered on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere and have been submitted solely to AJCC.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信