Implementation of Full Practice Authority for Nurse Practitioners in Massachusetts: Impact of Organizational Climate on Practice Change.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between nurse practitioner (NP) organizational climate and the implementation of full practice authority (FPA) for NPs. BACKGROUND: In 2021, Massachusetts passed FPA for NPs. Most NPs did not experience changes to their practice. It is unknown whether NP organizational climate impacts implementation of FPA. METHODS: A Web-based survey was distributed to NPs in Massachusetts. RESULTS: Response rate was 50.3% (N = 147). Practice remained unchanged for most. Organizations with more favorable climates experienced more rapid implementation of FPA, resulting in improved efficiency (P = 0.049) and timeliness (P = 0.007) of care. Nurse practitioners outside hospital systems were more likely to report favorable organizational climates and positive change to their practice after FPA. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations that facilitate implementation of FPA are likely to experience improvement in efficiency and timeliness of patient care. Nursing leadership, especially within hospital-based organizations, can help achieve these benefits by improving the organizational climate for NPs.

Continued restrictions on nurse practitioners: A qualitative study of the early implementation of full practice authority in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: In January 2021, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granted nurse practitioners (NPs) full practice authority (FPA). Little is known about how care delivery changed after FPA legislation. PURPOSE: To understand the NP perception of early implementation of FPA in Massachusetts. METHODS: Qualitative descriptive design using inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses to a web-based survey of NPs in Massachusetts from October to December 2021. FINDINGS: Survey response rate was 50.3% (N = 144). Inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses identified four themes, including: (a) internal and external barriers obstructed FPA implementation, (b) employer communication about scope-of-practice changes was minimal, (c) NPs led initiatives to implement FPA, and (d) some efforts effectively implemented FPA. DISCUSSION: Almost 1 year after FPA was passed, external policies persisted that financially incentivized employers to not change NP scope-of-practice. Concerted efforts are needed to ensure that federal and payer policies, such as incident-to billing, are aligned with state law to encourage the implementation of FPA.

U.S. Primary Care Provider Needs: An Analysis of Workforce Projections and Policy Implications.

The primary care (PC) physician workforce has consistently been projected as requiring additional numbers to meet the needs of the U.S. The Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA) has reported the PC nurse practitioner (NP) workforce to be 90,000 NPs more than required to meet the PC needs of the U.S. With both clinician types contributing to the PC workforce in the country, it is difficult to understand such an oversupply of NPs with continued deficit in PC physicians. The purpose of this study was to investigate results and methods used for HRSAs current PC workforce projections and compare those with the same used for Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) projections. Methods included a review of technical documents, dashboards, and published reports. Interviews with subject matter experts were also completed. Projections were found to differ significantly, as did data and assumptions. Two of the three projections modeled physicians as the sole provider of PC. An integrated model gives the most comprehensive and accurate picture of PC workforce needs. The utilization of NPs as PC providers has been demonstrated to be safe and effective, with the potential to alleviate predicted shortages, improve patient care outcomes, reduce cost, and address PC inequities. Implications include improving workforce data, creating projections that mirror clinical integration in PC, adjusting workforce preparation funding, incentivizing interprofessional collaboration in research, addressing barriers to practice among non-physician providers, and leveraging growth in the NP workforce.

Early implementation of full-practice authority: A survey of Massachusetts nurse practitioners.

BACKGROUND: In January 2021, Massachusetts granted nurse practitioners (NPs) full-practice authority (FPA). Little is known about how FPA changes the day-to-day work of NPs. PURPOSE: To examine changes in practice barriers and care delivery in the early stages of FPA. METHODOLOGY: Descriptive analysis of a web-based survey of clinically active NPs in Massachusetts from October to December 2021, using Fisher exact tests to examine the associations between the perception that FPA improved work and other variables. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 50.3% ( N = 147). Overall, 79% of NPs believe that clinical work is unchanged by FPA. Practicing outside institutions is a significant predictor of FPA improving work ( p < .05). Larger proportions of respondents feel that efficiency (22%), patient centeredness (20%), and timeliness (20%) are improved by FPA compared with effectiveness (16%), equity (14%), and safety (10%). Almost half of those reporting that FPA improves overall care also report improved efficiency (50%, p < .0001), but only 22% report improved safety ( p < .05). Of those believing that FPA improved work, a minority no longer need physician review of new controlled substance prescriptions (29%, p < .01), a practice agreement (32%, p < .05), or physician signature on clinical documentation (22%, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Almost 1 year after FPA was passed in Massachusetts, the large majority of NPs report no changes in their day-to-day work, suggesting that FPA implementation is slow. IMPLICATIONS: Concerted efforts by regulators, employers, and individual NPs are needed to ensure that legislated FPA is effectively implemented inside organizations and among payers.

Where are we now? Practice-level utilization of nurse practitioners in comparison with state-level regulations.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Full practice authority for nurse practitioners (NPs) is optimal for high-quality, cost-effective health care. However, a complete picture of utilization after states have adopted full practice authority needs to be determined. The purpose of this examination was to review the evidence regarding practice-level utilization (PLU) of NP PLU in comparison to state-level regulations (SLRs). METHODS: Studies published in English and based on US populations were identified through PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus (January 1, 1989-December 31, 2018), and bibliographies of retrieved articles. Of the 419 articles identified with these limits, 19 (5%) met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Four categories of PLU were identified: billing practices, level of supervision, privileges, and prescriptive authority. Significant differences were seen between urban versus rural NPs and primary care versus specialty NPs. Thirteen of the 19 studies did not specifically address the SLR of the included sample. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: No studies described the type of NP certification, practice specialty, and utilization, and compared all to the SLR. There is a need for more evidence concerning PLU of NPs across the tiers of SLR. Only then can health care organizations, political leaders, and other stakeholders have the information needed to proceed with beneficial practice-model changes.

The nurse practitioner workforce: One rural state's experience of comparing state data with national trends.

BACKGROUND: There is a great need for primary care across the country especially in rural and underserved areas. Nurse practitioners (NPs) are filling these access gaps by providing high-quality, cost-effective primary care. However, one rural midwestern state does not address NP workforce data separately from other types of nursing data. In addition, these data are not included in the state's overall primary care workforce. Therefore, the data cannot be compared to the state's needs or national workforce trends. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to describe North Dakota's (NDs) NP workforce and compare this with national data. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive design was used to collect and analyze NP workforce data from several sources. State Board of Nursing licensure data were used for description of the NDs current NP workforce. Six other data sources or reports were used to complete the data picture. State information was then compared with national NP survey results. RESULTS: Both ND and national data sources reported the largest percentage of NPs certified in either primary care or adult care and practice primary care at either an outpatient or inpatient setting. North Dakota has a higher percentage of NPs working in primary care as compared with the national numbers. However, inconsistent categories are used in ND's NP workforce data and national surveys making comparisons difficult. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Accurate inclusion of NP workforce data in the overall health care workforce data will better guide state and national policy makers on necessary changes to decrease provider shortages and promote increased access to rural primary care services.