Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
JAAPA ; 31(5): 38-43, 2018 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29698370

ABSTRACT

The unprecedented surge in physician assistants (PAs) and NPs in the ED developed quickly in recent years, but scope of practice and practice patterns are not well described. METHODS: We conducted two cross-sectional electronic surveys of the American College of Emergency Physicians' council. Survey construction was informed by interviews and evaluated with validity and reliability studies. Univariate analyses to establish associations also were performed. RESULTS: Most councilors' departments employ PAs and NPs (72.4% of 163 responses). Supervisory requirements varied greatly among respondents for the same emergency severity index (ESI) level. Regardless of experience level, NPs were reported to use significantly more resources than PAs; chi-square(4) = 105.292, P < .001 for less-experienced PAs or NPs; chi-square(4) = 120.415, P < .001 for more experienced PAs or NPs. CONCLUSION: Councilors reported great variation in PA and NP scope of practice. The results also suggest that new graduate PAs may be more clinically prepared to practice in the ED than new graduate NPs.


Subject(s)
Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Nurse Practitioners/supply & distribution , Physician Assistants/supply & distribution , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nurse Practitioners/education , Physician Assistants/education , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
J Patient Saf ; 13(2): 51-61, 2017 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28198722

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: End-of-life interventions should be predicated on consensus understanding of patient wishes. Written documents are not always understood; adding a video testimonial/message (VM) might improve clarity. Goals of this study were to (1) determine baseline rates of consensus in assigning code status and resuscitation decisions in critically ill scenarios and (2) determine whether adding a VM increases consensus. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2 web-based survey links to 1366 faculty and resident physicians at institutions with graduate medical education programs in emergency medicine, family practice, and internal medicine. Each survey asked for code status interpretation of stand-alone Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) and living will (LW) documents in 9 scenarios. Respondents assigned code status and resuscitation decisions to each scenario. For 1 of 2 surveys, a VM was included to help clarify patient wishes. RESULTS: Response rate was 54%, and most were male emergency physicians who lacked formal advanced planning document interpretation training. Consensus was not achievable for stand-alone POLST or LW documents (68%-78% noted "DNR"). Two of 9 scenarios attained consensus for code status (97%-98% responses) and treatment decisions (96%-99%). Adding a VM significantly changed code status responses by 9% to 62% (P ≤ 0.026) in 7 of 9 scenarios with 4 achieving consensus. Resuscitation responses changed by 7% to 57% (P ≤ 0.005) with 4 of 9 achieving consensus with VMs. CONCLUSIONS: For most scenarios, consensus was not attained for code status and resuscitation decisions with stand-alone LW and POLST documents. Adding VMs produced significant impacts toward achieving interpretive consensus.


Subject(s)
Communication , Comprehension , Consensus , Critical Care , Living Wills , Physicians , Resuscitation Orders , Adult , Critical Illness , Emergency Medicine , Family Practice , Female , Humans , Internal Medicine , Male , Middle Aged , Safety , Surveys and Questionnaires , Video Recording
3.
Ann Emerg Med ; 55(2): 171-80, 2010 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19800711

ABSTRACT

Patient handoffs at shift change are a ubiquitous and potentially hazardous process in emergency care. As crowding and lengthy evaluations become the standard for an increasing proportion of emergency departments (EDs), the number of patients handed off will likely increase. It is critical now more than ever before to ensure that handoffs supply valid and useful shared understandings between providers at transitions of care. The purpose of this article is to provide the most up-to-date evidence and collective thinking about the process and safety of handoffs between physicians in the ED. It offers perspectives from other disciplines, provides a conceptual framework for handoffs, and categorizes models of existing practices. Legal and risk management issues are also addressed. A proposal for the development of handoff quality measures is outlined. Practical strategies are suggested to improve ED handoffs. Finally, a research agenda is proposed to provide a roadmap to future work that may increase knowledge in this area.


Subject(s)
Continuity of Patient Care , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Interprofessional Relations , Risk Management , Communication , Efficiency, Organizational , Humans , Models, Organizational , Risk Management/methods , Risk Management/organization & administration , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...