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.

Teamwork and Electronic Health Record Implementation: A Case Study of Preserving Effective Communication and Mutual Trust in a Changing Environment.

This article describes how trust among team members and in the technology supporting them was eroded during implementation of an electronic health record (EHR) in an adult outpatient oncology practice at a comprehensive cancer center. Delays in care of a 38-year-old woman with high-risk breast cancer occurred because of ineffective team communication and are illustrated in a case study. The case explores how the patient's trust and mutual trust between team members were disrupted because of inaccurate assumptions about the functionality of the EHR's communication tool, resultant miscommunications between team members and the patient, and the eventual recognition that care was not being effectively coordinated, as it had been previously. Despite a well-established, team-based culture and significant preparation for the EHR implementation, the challenges that occurred point to underlying human and system failures from which other organizations going through a similar process may learn. Through an analysis and evaluation of events that transpired before and during the EHR rollout, suggested interventions for preventing this experience are offered, which include: a thorough crosswalk between old and new communication mechanisms before implementation; understanding and mitigation of gaps in the communication tool's functionality; more robust training for staff, clinicians, and patients; greater consideration given to the pace of change expected of individuals; and development of models of collaboration between EHR users and vendors in developing products that support high-quality, team-based care in the oncology setting. These interventions are transferable to any organizational or system change that threatens mutual trust and effective communication.