Search

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most prevalent heart disease in the United States, and it disproportionately affects Black compared to White patients. Regular primary care and dyslipidemia screening and management are essential for optimal CAD care. Nurse practitioners (NPs) increasingly provide primary care services, though unsupportive practice environments may constrain their ability to do so., Purpose: To examine whether disparities in lipid screening between Black and White patients with CAD were associated with the NP practice environment scores., Methods: Cross-sectional survey data from NPs in primary care practices and Medicare claims were linked to evaluate outcomes among 111,911 CAD patients (94% White, 6% Black) across 456 primary care practices in four states (California, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) in 2016. The NP-Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire, which provides a score on the supportiveness of a respondent's practice, was used to evaluate the NP practice environment. Multilevel regression models that accounted for patient and practice characteristics were used to evaluate the study aim., Results: Compared to White patients with CAD, Black patients with CAD less frequently received annual lipid screening (77.0% vs. 70.6%; p < .001). In logistic regression models accounting for patient and practice characteristics, for every standard deviation increase in the practice environment score, Black patients experienced a 5% increase in odds of receiving lipid screening., Conclusion: Investing in the NP practice environment, including increasing NP role visibility and strengthening relationships with physicians and administrators, may narrow racial disparities in CAD management.

Background: Chronic pain disproportionately impacts veterans and is often treated in primary care, where physician shortages in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) healthcare system are well documented. Nurse practitioners (NPs) may represent a solution to the care shortage; however, concerns of NP opioid overprescribing have led to NP practice and prescribing restrictions in individual VHA facilities and at the state level. Little is known regarding the prescribing patterns of NPs and physician assistants (PAs) for veterans with chronic pain in the VHA., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare opioid and non-opioid prescribing patterns of physicians, NPs, and PAs for chronic pain patients at VHA centers., Methods: We used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Survey of Healthcare Experience of Patients and Corporate Data Warehouse from October 2015 to September 2016. Patient medical records for the year were analyzed by provider type (physician, NP, or PA) for differences in providers' rates of prescribing opioid and non-opioid medications, as well as characteristics of the opioid prescriptions (e.g., high daily morphine milligram equivalent [90 MME/day] dose, long-term opioid therapy [90 days])., Results: Medical records of a total of 39,936 patients were included. In FY 2016, 55% of patients received one opioid prescription, whereas 83.8% received one non-opioid prescription. Compared to patients of NPs and PAs, patients of physicians had higher odds of receiving opioid (vs. NPs: OR = 1.13, p < 0.01; vs. PAs: OR = 1.16, p < 0.01) and non-opioid prescriptions (vs. NPs: OR=1.08, p = 0.02; vs. PAs: OR=1.20, p < 0.01) after adjusting for patient characteristics. There were no differences in high MME/day dose ( p = 0.59) or long-term opioid therapy ( p = 0.99)., Conclusion: In a national sample of veterans with chronic pain, NPs and PAs did not have higher odds of opioid prescribing. Concerns of NP or PA opioid overprescribing may be addressed by considering evidence that patients of these providers are not at higher odds of receiving an opioid prescription.

Background: Deployment of nurse practitioners (NPs) to health professional shortage areas (HPSA) may help to address challenges in patient access to care. However, restrictive scope of practice imposed by regulatory and state legislative bodies or unsupportive organizational climates in clinical practice settings may constrain NP care delivery and perpetuate lower assessments of quality of care provided in these underserved communities., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the associations between state NP scope of practice regulations, NP practice environment, and self-reported ratings of quality of care in primary care practices located in HPSAs., Methods: This was a cross-sectional analysis of data from 1,972 participant NPs practicing across 1,711 primary care practices in six states representing full (Arizona and Washington), reduced (Pennsylvania and New Jersey), and restricted (California and Florida) NP scope of practice regulation. Survey data were merged with the Area Health Resource Files to determine practices located in primary care HPSAs. Logistic regression models estimated the relationship between quality ratings, scope of practice regulations, and practice environment scores while accounting for NP and practice characteristics., Results: Among all included NPs, 95.7% rated their practice as having "excellent," "very good," or "good" quality of care. Practice environments with higher scores had higher ratings of quality of care after accounting for NP and practice characteristics (OR = 3.73, 95% CI: 2.84, 4.89)., Conclusion: Unsupportive clinical practice environments were associated with lower ratings of quality of care in HPSAs, suggesting that improvements in working conditions may be necessary adjuncts to greater deployment of NPs to improve primary care in shortage areas.