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}
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.
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.