Where are we now? Practice-level utilization of nurse practitioners in comparison with state-level regulations.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Full practice authority for nurse practitioners (NPs) is optimal for high-quality, cost-effective health care. However, a complete picture of utilization after states have adopted full practice authority needs to be determined. The purpose of this examination was to review the evidence regarding practice-level utilization (PLU) of NP PLU in comparison to state-level regulations (SLRs). METHODS: Studies published in English and based on US populations were identified through PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus (January 1, 1989-December 31, 2018), and bibliographies of retrieved articles. Of the 419 articles identified with these limits, 19 (5%) met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Four categories of PLU were identified: billing practices, level of supervision, privileges, and prescriptive authority. Significant differences were seen between urban versus rural NPs and primary care versus specialty NPs. Thirteen of the 19 studies did not specifically address the SLR of the included sample. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: No studies described the type of NP certification, practice specialty, and utilization, and compared all to the SLR. There is a need for more evidence concerning PLU of NPs across the tiers of SLR. Only then can health care organizations, political leaders, and other stakeholders have the information needed to proceed with beneficial practice-model changes.

The nurse practitioner workforce: One rural state's experience of comparing state data with national trends.

BACKGROUND: There is a great need for primary care across the country especially in rural and underserved areas. Nurse practitioners (NPs) are filling these access gaps by providing high-quality, cost-effective primary care. However, one rural midwestern state does not address NP workforce data separately from other types of nursing data. In addition, these data are not included in the state's overall primary care workforce. Therefore, the data cannot be compared to the state's needs or national workforce trends. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to describe North Dakota's (NDs) NP workforce and compare this with national data. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive design was used to collect and analyze NP workforce data from several sources. State Board of Nursing licensure data were used for description of the NDs current NP workforce. Six other data sources or reports were used to complete the data picture. State information was then compared with national NP survey results. RESULTS: Both ND and national data sources reported the largest percentage of NPs certified in either primary care or adult care and practice primary care at either an outpatient or inpatient setting. North Dakota has a higher percentage of NPs working in primary care as compared with the national numbers. However, inconsistent categories are used in ND's NP workforce data and national surveys making comparisons difficult. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Accurate inclusion of NP workforce data in the overall health care workforce data will better guide state and national policy makers on necessary changes to decrease provider shortages and promote increased access to rural primary care services.