CJEM Articles: nurse practitioner

Objective: Our objective was to compare the emergency care provided by a nurse practitioner (NP) with that provided by emergency physicians (EPs), to identify emergency department (ED) patients appropriate for autonomous NP practice and to acquire data to facilitate the development of the clinical scope of practice recommendations for ED practice for NPs.

Methods: Using a comprehensive 3-part process, we selected and hired the best NP from 12 applicants. The NP was oriented to the operations of our free-standing community ED and incorporated in the care team, working in real time with EP preceptors during a 6-month, prospective clinical assessment comparing NP care with EP care. ED preceptors reviewed every case in real time with the NP and completed an explicit evaluation form to determine whether NP assessment, investigation, treatment and disposition were "all equivalent to emergency physician care" (AEEPC) or whether they differed. The proportion of AEEPC interactions was determined for 23 patient presentation categories. Our a priori assumption was that a patient presentation category might be suitable for autonomous NP practice if 50% of NP encounters in that category were rated as AEEPC. Descriptive data were presented for patient case mix, teaching domains and time criteria.

Results: Eighty-three NP shifts and 711 patient encounters were evaluated by 21 EP preceptors. The NP saw a median of 8 patients per shift. In 43% of encounters, NP care was AEEPC. Highest AEEPC rates were found in the patient follow-up categories general follow-up (55.4%), diagnostic imaging (91.7%) and microbiology laboratory results (87.6%). NP scores over 50% were also seen for lacerations (63.6%) and isolated sore throats (53%). With teaching, NP performance improved over time.

Conclusion: With the exception of follow up-related complaints, simple lacerations and isolated sore throats, NP care differed substantially from EP care. Although NPs with extensive emergency experience and training might ultimately be able to function as autonomous ED care providers, Canadian EDs currently developing job descriptions for emergency NPs should focus on a model of collaborative practice with EPs.

Introduction: US emergency personnel cared for 106% more patients in 1990 than they did in 1980,1 and national emergency department census data show that 60%-80% of those patients presented with non-urgent or minor medical problems. The hiring of nurse practitioners (NPs) is one proposed solution to the ongoing overcrowding and physician shortage facing emergency departments (EDs).

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and Cinahl to find articles that discussed NPs in the ED setting, looking specifically at 4 key outcome measures: wait times, patient satisfaction, quality of care and cost effectiveness.

Results: Although some questions remain, a review of the literature suggests that NPs can reduce wait times for the ED, lead to high patient satisfaction and provide a quality of care equal to that of a mid-grade resident. Cost, when compared with resident physicians, is higher; however, data comparing to the hiring additional medical professionals is lacking.

Conclusion: The medical community should further explore the use of NPs, particularly in fast track areas for high volume departments. In rural areas, NPs could supplement overextended physicians and allow health centres to remain open when they might otherwise have to close. These strategies could improve access to care and patient satisfaction for selected urban and rural populations as well as make the best use of limited medical resources.