A Review of Interprofessional Variation in Education: Challenges and Considerations in the Growth of Advanced Practice Providers in Emergency Medicine.

The employment and utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs) in the emergency department has been steadily increasing. Physicians, physician assistants (PAs), and nurse practitioners (NPs) have vastly different requirements for admission to graduate programs, clinical exposure, and postgraduate training. It is important that as supervisory physicians, patients, hospital administrators, and lawmakers, we understand the differences to best create a collaborative, supportive, and educational framework within which PAs/NPs can work effectively as part of a care team. This paper reviews the trends, considerations, and challenges of an evolving clinician workforce in the specialty of emergency medicine (EM). Subsequently, the following parameters of APP training are examined and discussed: the divergence in physician, PA, and NP education and training; requirements of PA and NP degree programs; variation in clinical contact hours; degree-specific licensing and postgraduate EM certification; opportunities for specialty training; and the evolution and availability of residency programs for APPs. The descriptive review is followed by a discussion of contemporary and timely issues that impact EM and considerations brought forth by the expansion of APPs in EM such as the current drive to independent practice and the push for reimbursement parity. We review current position statements from pertinent professional organizations regarding PA and NP capabilities, responsibilities, and physician oversight as well as billing implications, care outcomes and medicolegal implications.

Attending documentation contribution to billing at an academic ED with an electronic health record.

INTRODUCTION: In emergency medicine (EM), patient care documentation serves many functions, including supporting reimbursement. In addition, many electronic health record systems facilitate automatically populating certain data fields. As a result, in the academic model, the attending's note may now more often recapitulate many of the same elements found in the resident's or physician assistant's (PA) note. We sought to determine the value of additional attending documentation, and how often the attending documentation prevented a downcoding event. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study was exempted by the Institutional Review Board. We randomly reviewed 10 charts for each attending physician during the study period. Outcome measures included the frequency of prevented downcoding events, and the difference in this incidence between residents and PAs. RESULTS: 530 charts were identified, but 6 were excluded as these patients left without being seen. 524 charts remained, of which 286 (45%) notes were written by residents and 238 (55%) notes were written by PAs. Attending documentation prevented 16 (3%) downcoding events, of which 11 were in patient encounters documented by residents and 5 were in encounters documented by PAs (p=0.057). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of an academic medical center documentation model with an EHR, EM attending documentation of the history of present illness, review of systems, physical exam, and medical decision making portions prevented downcoding in a small number of cases. In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of prevented downcoding events between residents and PAs.