Provider to patient ratios for nurse practitioners and physician assistants in critical care units.

BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are being increasingly integrated into intensive care unit and hospital-based care teams, yet limited information is available on provider to patient ratios. OBJECTIVE: To determine current provider to patient ratios for nurse practitioners and physician assistants working in intensive and acute care units and to assess factors that affect the ratios. METHODS: A descriptive study design was used with a Web-based survey of members of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. RESULTS: Responses were received from 222 nurse practitioners and 211 physician assistants from all but 8 of the 50 United States and from Canada. Mean provider to patient ratios in intensive care were 1 to 5 (range, 1 to 3 - 1 to 8). In pediatric intensive care, the mean ratio of nurse practitioners to patients was 1 to 4 (range, 1 to 3 - 1 to 8). Factors that affected nurse practitioner and physician assistant provider to patient ratios included patients' severity of illness, number of patients in the unit, number of providers in the unit, patient diagnosis, number of physicians in the unit, time of day, and number of fellows and medical residents on service. CONCLUSIONS: Additional information on factors influencing provider to patient ratios and specific components of the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants will be important to ensure the best utilization of these providers to enable optimal patient care outcomes.

A five-country comparison of anxiety early after acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety is common after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and has the potential to negatively affect physical and psychosocial recovery. There have been no cross-cultural comparisons of anxiety among AMI patients. AIMS: To evaluate whether anxiety after AMI differs across five diverse countries and to determine whether an interaction between country, and sociodemographic and clinical variables contributes to variations in reporting anxiety. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 912 individuals with confirmed AMI were enrolled in this prospective, comparative, cross-cultural study. Anxiety was assessed within 72 h of hospital admission using the Brief Symptom Inventory. The mean level of anxiety in the entire sample was 0.62+/-0.76, which is 44% higher than the normal mean level. Anxiety levels were not significantly different among the countries with the exception that patients in England reported lower levels of anxiety than those in the US (P=0.03). However, this difference disappeared after controlling for sociodemographic variables on which the countries differed. CONCLUSION: Patients from each country studied experienced high anxiety after AMI. Even though various cultures were represented in this study, culture itself did not account for variations in anxiety after AMI. It appears that anxiety after AMI is a universal phenomenon.

Comparison of 3 methods of detecting acute respiratory distress syndrome: clinical screening, chart review, and diagnostic coding.

BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome has been studied, few researchers have prospectively assessed the search tool used to identify cases. METHODS: For 5 months, all patients admitted to a medical intensive care unit in a teaching hospital were evaluated daily to determine whether criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome were met, and physicians' progress notes and discharge summaries for these prospectively identified patients were reviewed for mention of the syndrome. Discharge forms were reviewed for the codes (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision) specific to acute respiratory distress syndrome (518.82 or 518.85). RESULTS: Of 314 patients admitted, 65 prospectively met the criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Of these 65 patients, 31 had acute respiratory distress syndrome mentioned in their progress notes, and 4 of the 31 were subsequently assigned a code of 518.82 or 518.85. Patients with a physician's notation for acute respiratory distress syndrome in their charts had a higher mortality (22/31 [71%]) than did the patients with no such notation (10/34 [29%]). This difference could not be accounted for by differences in length of stay, mean age, score on Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, or number of days in the unit before meeting the criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome is underestimated when based on either diagnostic coding or physicians' notes without testing of the accuracy of coding. Both physicians and medical record coding specialists may require training in use of terms related to acute respiratory distress syndrome.