ABSTRACT
In view of the shortage of medical staff, the quality and continuity of care may be improved by employing advanced practice providers (APPs). This study aims to assess the quality of these APPs in critical care. In a large teaching hospital, rapid response team (RRT) interventions led by APPs were assessed by independent observers and intensivists and compared to those led by medical residents MRs. In addition to mortality, the MAELOR tool (assessment of RRT intervention), time from RRT call until arrival at the scene and time until completion of clinical investigations were assessed. Process outcomes were assessed with the crisis management skills checklist, the Ottawa global rating scale and the Mayo high-performance teamwork scale. The intensivists assessed performance with the handoff CEX recipient scale. Mortality, MAELOR tool, time until arrival and clinical investigation in both groups were the same. Process outcomes and performance observer scores were also equal. The CEX recipient scores, however, showed differences between MRs and APPs that increased with experience. Experienced APPs had significantly better situational awareness, better organization, better evaluations and better judgment than MRs with equal experience (p < 0.05). This study shows that APPs perform well in leading an RRT and may provide added quality over a resident. RRTs should seriously consider the deployment of APPs instead of junior clinicians.
ABSTRACT
To assess the frequency and safety of procedures performed by advanced practice providers and medical residents in a mixed-bed ICU. DESIGN: A prospective observational study where consecutive invasive procedures were studied over a period of 1 year and 8 months. The interventions were registered anonymously in an online database. Endpoints were success rate at first attempt, number of attempts, complications, level of supervision, and teamwork. SETTING: A 33-bedded mixed ICU. SUBJECTS: Advanced practice providers and medical residents. INTERVENTIONS: Registration of the performance of tracheal intubation, central venous and arterial access, tube thoracostomies, interhospital transportation, and electrical cardioversion. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A full-time advanced practice provider performed an average of 168 procedures and a medical resident an average of 68. The advanced practice provider inserted significant more radial, brachial, and femoral artery catheters (66% vs 74%, p = 0.17; 15% vs 12%, p = 0.14; 18% vs 14%, p = 0.14, respectively). The median number of attempts needed to successfully insert an arterial catheter was lower, and the success rate at first attempt was higher in the group treated by advanced practice providers (1.30 [interquartile range, 1-1.82] vs 1.53 [interquartile range, 1-2.27], p < 0.0001; and 71% vs 54%, p < 0.0001). The advanced practice providers inserted more central venous catheters (247 vs 177) with a lower median number of attempts (1.20 [interquartile range, 1-1.71] vs 1.33 [interquartile range, 1-1.86]) and a higher success rate at first attempt (81% vs 70%; p < 0.005). The number of intubations by advanced practice providers was 143 and by medical residents was 115 with more supervision by the advanced practice provider (10% vs 0%; p = 0.01). Team performance, as reported by nursing staff, was higher during advanced practice provider procedures compared with medical resident procedures (median, 4.85 [interquartile range, 4.85-5] vs 4.73 [interquartile range, 4.22-5]). Other procedures were also more often performed by advanced practice providers. The complication rate in the advanced practice provider-treated patient group was lower than that in the medical resident group. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced practice providers in critical care performed procedures safe and effectively when compared with medical residents. Advanced practice providers appear to be a valuable addition to the professional staff in critical care when it comes to invasive procedures.
