Search

• Background Many academic medical centers employ nurse practitioners as substitutes to provide care normally supplied by house staff.• Objective To compare outcomes in a subacute medical intensive care unit of patients managed by a team consisting of either an acute care nurse practitioner and an attending physician or an attending physician and critical care/pulmonary fellows.• Methods During a 31-month period, in 7-month blocks of time, 526 consecutive patients admitted to the unit for more than 24 hours were managed by one or the other of the teams. Patients managed by the 2 teams were compared for a variety of outcomes.• Results Patients managed by the 2 teams did not differ significantly for any workload, demographic, or medical condition variable. The patients also did not differ in readmission to the high acuity unit (P = .25) or subacute unit (P = .44) within 72 hours of discharge or in mortality with (P = .25) or without (P = .89) treatment limitations. Among patients who had multiple weaning trials, patients managed by the 2 teams did not differ in length of stay in the subacute unit (P = .42), duration of mechanical ventilation (P = .18), weaning status at time of discharge from the unit (P = .80), or disposition (P = .28). Acute Physiology Scores were significantly different over time (P = .046). Patients managed by the fellows had more reintubations (P=.02).• Conclusions In a subacute intensive care unit, management by the 2 teams produced equivalent outcomes.

• Background Information about the contributions of acute care nurse practitioners to medical management teams in critical care settings is limited.• Objective To examine contributions of acute care nurse practitioners to medical management of critically ill patients from the perspectives of 3 disciplines: medicine, respiratory care, and nursing.• Methods Attending physicians, respiratory therapists, and nurses in 2 intensive care units were asked to list 3 advantages and 3 disadvantages of collaborative care provided by acute care nurse practitioners. Qualitative methods (coding/constant comparative analysis) were used to identify common themes and subthemes. Overall response rate was 35% (from 69% for attending physicians to 26% for nurses).• Results Responses were grouped into 4 main themes: accessibility, competence/knowledge, care coordination/communication, and system issues. Acute care nurse practitioners were valued for their accessibility, expertise in routine daily management of patients, and ability to meet patient/family needs, especially for “long-stay” patients. Also, they were respected for their commitment to providing quality care and for their communication skills, exemplified through teaching of nursing staff, patient/family involvement, and fluency in weaning protocols. Physicians valued acute care nurse practitioners’ continuity of care, patient/family focus, and commitment. Nurses valued their accessibility, commitment, and patient/family focus. Respiratory therapists valued their accessibility, commitment, and consistency in implementing weaning protocols.• Conclusion Responses reflected unique advantages of acute care nurse practitioners as members of medical management teams in critical care settings. Despite perceptions of the acute care nurse practitioner’s role as medically oriented, the themes reflect a clear nursing focus.

• Background Little is known about aspects of practice that differ between acute care nurse practitioners and physicians that might affect patients’ outcomes.• Objective To determine if time spent in work activities differs between an acute care nurse practitioner and physicians in training (pulmonary/critical care fellows) managing patients’ care in a step-down medical intensive care unit.• Methods Work sampling techniques were used to collect data when the nurse practitioner had 6 months’ or less experience in the role (T1), after the nurse practitioner had 12 months’ experience in the role (T2), and when physicians in training provided care on a rotational schedule (nurse practitioner not present, T3). These data were used to estimate the time spent in direct management of patients, coordination of care, and nonunit activities.• Results Results for T1 and T2 were similar. When T2 and T3 were compared, the nurse practitioner and the physicians in training spent approximately half their time in activities directly related to management of patients (40% vs 44%, not significantly different). The nurse practitioner spent more time in activities related to coordination of care (45% vs 18%; P < .001) and less time in nonunit activities (15% vs 37%; P < .001).• Conclusion The nurse practitioner and the physicians in training spent a similar proportion of time performing required tasks. Because of training requirements, physicians spent more time than the nurse practitioner in nonunit activities. Conversely, the nurse practitioner spent more time interacting with patients and patients’ families and collaborating with health team members.

Many academic medical centers employ nurse practitioners as substitutes to provide care normally supplied by house staff.To compare outcomes in a subacute medical intensive care unit of patients managed by a team consisting of either an acute care nurse practitioner and an attending physician or an attending physician and critical care/pulmonary fellows.During a 31-month period, in 7-month blocks of time, 526 consecutive patients admitted to the unit for more than 24 hours were managed by one or the other of the teams. Patients managed by the 2 teams were compared for a variety of outcomes.Patients managed by the 2 teams did not differ significantly for any workload, demographic, or medical condition variable. The patients also did not differ in readmission to the high acuity unit (P = .25) or subacute unit (P = .44) within 72 hours of discharge or in mortality with (P = .25) or without (P = .89) treatment limitations. Among patients who had multiple weaning trials, patients managed by the 2 teams did not differ in length of stay in the subacute unit (P = .42), duration of mechanical ventilation (P = .18), weaning status at time of discharge from the unit (P = .80), or disposition (P = .28). Acute Physiology Scores were significantly different over time (P = .046). Patients managed by the fellows had more reintubations (P=.02).In a subacute intensive care unit, management by the 2 teams produced equivalent outcomes.

Little is known about aspects of practice that differ between acute care nurse practitioners and physicians that might affect patients' outcomes.To determine if time spent in work activities differs between an acute care nurse practitioner and physicians in training (pulmonary/critical care fellows) managing patients' care in a step-down medical intensive care unit.Work sampling techniques were used to collect data when the nurse practitioner had 6 months' or less experience in the role (T1), after the nurse practitioner had 12 months' experience in the role (T2), and when physicians in training provided care on a rotational schedule (nurse practitioner not present, T3). These data were used to estimate the time spent in direct management of patients, coordination of care, and nonunit activities.Results for T1 and T2 were similar. When T2 and T3 were compared, the nurse practitioner and the physicians in training spent approximately half their time in activities directly related to management of patients (40% vs 44%, not significantly different). The nurse practitioner spent more time in activities related to coordination of care (45% vs 18%; P.001) and less time in nonunit activities (15% vs 37%; P.001).The nurse practitioner and the physicians in training spent a similar proportion of time performing required tasks. Because of training requirements, physicians spent more time than the nurse practitioner in nonunit activities. Conversely, the nurse practitioner spent more time interacting with patients and patients' families and collaborating with health team members.