Assessment of Oncology Advanced Practice Professional Willingness to Participate in Medical Aid in Dying.

Importance: In 2021, New Mexico passed legislation allowing nurse practitioners and physician assistants (referred to herein as advanced practice professionals [APPs]) to prescribe medications for medical aid in dying (MAID). Other US states with existing MAID laws (eg, Washington) are also considering expanding MAID prescribing authority to APPs. There is a lack of research exploring APP knowledge of, willingness to, and comfort with acting as a prescribing or consulting clinician for MAID. Objective: To assess perspectives of oncology APPs regarding MAID, including their willingness to prescribe and/or consult for MAID and factors associated with willingness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, self-report survey study used data collected from APPs working at a comprehensive cancer center in Washington State in fall 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary survey question was whether APPs would be willing to participate in death with dignity, the term used for MAID in Washington. Survey questions evaluated how influential specific factors were on APP views on MAID as well as respondents' knowledge of and comfort with aspects of the MAID process. Results: Of 167 eligible APPs, 77 (46.1%) responded to the survey. Most respondents (68 [88.3%]) reported their race and ethnicity as White; 72 (93.5%) identified as a woman. Medical oncology (28 [36.4%]) was the most common field of practice, and 21 respondents (27.3%) reported having practiced as an APP for 6 to 10 years. Of all respondents, 61 (79.2%) reported having at least 1 patient who inquired about MAID; depending on the question, less than a third of respondents (5.0%-27.0%) endorsed feeling knowledgeable or very knowledgeable about any aspect of the MAID process. In this study, 39 APPs (50.6%) endorsed being willing to participate in MAID either as a consulting or prescribing clinician, whereas 31 (40.3%) were uncertain of whether they would participate. Willingness to participate was associated with having had more patients pursue MAID (33 of the 39 willing participants [84.6%] vs 15 of the 31 unsure participants [48.4%] reported having 1 or more patients pursue MAID). Higher knowledge and comfort scores were both significantly associated with increased odds of being willing to participate (odds ratio, 1.14 per 1-point score increase [95% CI, 1.03-1.27]; P = .01) vs unsure (1.18 [95% CI, 1.07-1.30; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey study suggest that oncology APPs may require preparation for the addition of MAID to their scope of practice. This study also raises questions for future research regarding support for APPs who may be considering participation in MAID but question their role or want physician involvement.

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.

Advanced Practitioner Leadership in Times of Crisis.

JADPRO Live Virtual kicked off with the opening panel on advanced practitioner leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. The group discussed their institutional emergency protocols, how they leveraged advanced practitioners (APs) to provide care during the crisis peak, and how they responded to the personal issues and anxieties of their AP colleagues.