Implementation and Evaluation of a Nurse Practitioner Onboarding Program at a Large Healthcare Facility.

A comprehensive, evidence-based onboarding program benefits healthcare workers and institutions. Many institutions do not have onboarding programs for new nurse practitioners (NPs). In this quality improvement initiative, a standardized onboarding program was developed. The impact on NP satisfaction and retention was evaluated. Lead NPs were identified as program managers. Program components included role introduction, competency validation, review of administrative essentials, ongoing progress logs, and program evaluations. The program resulted in increased NP satisfaction and retention.

Retrospective analysis of HEART Score results in cost saving.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Chest pain (CP) is one of the most frequent chief complaints of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Diagnoses range from life-threatening acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to less concerning musculoskeletal injury. Patients are frequently admitted for comprehensive cardiac evaluation. However, it is estimated that <10% are diagnosed with ACS. Identifying low-risk patients who can be safely discharged from the ED results in lower cost burden and less patient days. The HEART Score is a recently validated tool for undifferentiated CP in the ED used to identify low-risk patients. The purpose of this project was to ascertain if the HEART Score could be utilized in the Veteran population for the evaluation of undifferentiated chest pain. LOCAL PROBLEM: There is no standard assessment tool used in the ED at the Veterans Administration Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) to evaluate CP in low-risk patents. METHODS: As part of a quality improvement initiative, a retrospective analysis was performed on patients presenting to the ED with CP over a 6-month period. A total of 197 VAPHS patients were identified through the computerized medical record system. HEART Scores were calculated for each patient. Patients scored as low risk (score of 0-3) were further evaluated for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 28% (56) of the patients presenting to the ED with CP were at low risk based on the HEART Score. There were no MACE. There were cost savings compared with usual care ($1,145 vs. $4,700). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The HEART Score can be safely used to identify low-risk patients and result in cost savings for Veteran population.