Interventions to Improve Advanced Practitioner Work-Related Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction.

Background: Across the United States, an incremental need for cancer care continues to emerge. Specialty nurse practitioners and physician assistant teams have helped in meeting this demand. However, there is a need for evidence-based recommendations to inform appropriate provider-patient staffing ratios that encompass complex cancer treatments and ensure optimal care. Methods: A literature review identified a gap in existing research with regard to recommended inpatient provider-patient ratios for hematology and oncology services. The conceptual framework of ICU nursing workload was utilized to ensure a comprehensive understanding of an inpatient specialty cancer provider's duties. Results: Within the unit, job, patient, and situation workload levels, there were multiple interventions implemented to streamline systems and improve workplace conditions for providers, as measured by the work-related quality of life (WRQoL) scale. Patient satisfaction scores improved an average of 4% across multiple criteria and exceeded benchmark rankings by 10.7% surrounding communication with nurses and physicians (a 6.3% increase). Discharge efficiency improved, with 6.1% more discharges occurring by 11:00 am, and length of stay was noted to be 8.8 days fewer than teaching services treating the same cancer diagnosis. Finally, additional shift pay was greatly reduced and turnover decreased by 17%. Conclusion: Application of the conceptual framework of ICU nursing workload provided a scientific assessment of specialty inpatient cancer services within one institution. Interventions resulted in improved working conditions, patient satisfaction, discharge efficiency, and reduced turnover, ultimately ensuring the provision of high-quality cancer care.

Measuring Advanced Practice Provider Productivity at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Member Institutions.

Introduction: The utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs) in oncology has been growing over the last decade; however, there is no standard method for assessing an APP's contributions to oncology care. Methods: The NCCN Best Practices Committee (BPC) created an APP Workgroup to develop recommendations to support the roles of APPs at NCCN Member Institutions. The Workgroup conducted surveys to understand how NCCN centers measure productivity. This article will review the survey results and provide recommendations for measuring APP productivity. Results: Although 54% of responding centers indicated they utilize relative value units (RVU) targets for independent APP visits, 88% of APPs are either unsure or do not believe RVUs are an effective measurement of overall productivity. Relative value units do not reflect non-billable hours, and APPs perform a significant number of non-billable tasks that are important to oncology practices. Sixty-six percent of APPs believe that measuring disease-based team productivity is a more reasonable assessment of APP productivity than measuring productivity at the individual level. Conclusion: Our recommendation for cancer centers is to focus on the value that APPs provide to overall care delivery. Advanced practice provider productivity metrics should consider not only the number of patients seen by APPs, but also the high quality and thorough care delivered that contributes to the overall care of the patient and practice. Advanced practice providers can help improve access to care, deliver improved outcomes, and increase patient and provider satisfaction. Reducing the focus on RVUs, accounting for important non-RVU-generating activities, and incorporating quality and team metrics will provide a better overall picture of APP productivity.

A Study of Advanced Practice Provider Staffing Models and Professional Development Opportunities at National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions.

INTRODUCTION: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Best Practices Committee created an Advanced Practice Provider (APP) Workgroup to develop recommendations to support APP roles at NCCN Member Institutions. METHODS: The Workgroup conducted three surveys to understand APP program structure, staffing models, and professional development opportunities at NCCN Member Institutions. RESULTS: The total number of new and follow-up visits a 1.0 APP full-time equivalent conducts per week in shared and independent visits ranged from 11 to 97, with an average of 40 visits per week (n = 39). The type of visits APPs conduct include follow-up shared (47.2%), follow-up independent (46%), new shared (6.5%), and new independent visits (0.5%). Seventy-two percent of respondents utilize a mixed model visit type, with 15% utilizing only independent visits and 13% utilizing only shared visits (n = 39). Of the 95% of centers with APP leads, 100% indicated that leads carry administrative and clinical responsibilities (n = 20); however, results varied with respect to how this time is allocated. Professional development opportunities offered included posters, papers, and presentations (84%), leadership development (57%), research opportunities (52%), writing book chapters (19%), and other professional development activities (12%; n = 422). Twenty percent of APPs indicated that protected time to engage in development opportunities should be offered. CONCLUSION: As evidenced by the variability of the survey results, the field would benefit from developing standards for APPs. There is a lack of information regarding leadership structures to help support APPs, and additional research is needed. Additionally, centers should continuously assess the career-long opportunities needed to maximize the value of oncology APPs.