A Strategic Approach for Developing an Advanced Practice Workforce: From Postgraduate Transition-to-Practice Fellowship Programs and Beyond.

The healthcare provider landscape is rapidly changing. Given the imminent retirement of baby boomer physicians, implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and the increased utilization of health care services by an ever-aging population, the supply of providers cannot keep pace with the demand for services. This has led to an increased utilization of advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs). This article shows how one large highly-matrixed health care system approached identifying this workforce, and how thought leaders worked collaboratively with physicians, administrators, and ACPs to meet a growing demand for providers. Carolinas HealthCare System developed a 3-pronged approach to this opportunity. The development of a Center for Advanced Practice was explored and implemented. This Center serves as a 2-way conduit of information and ideas between system administrators and providers. It also serves as a central source of regulatory and practice information for administrators and providers. The growing number of open ACP positions, along with the reluctance to employ novice and new graduate ACPs, led to the development of a postgraduate transition to practice fellowship program. This program's clinical tracks and curriculum are described. Finally, a collaborative effort between the health care system and a local university resulted in the local offering of an acute care nurse practitioner program, which allowed system nurses to continue their education without the need for relocation. Higher satisfaction and engagement, lower turnover, better career opportunities, more satisfied administrators, and physicians all contributed to the overwhelming success of this initiative.

Vena cava filter retrieval in therapeutically anticoagulated patients.

BACKGROUND: Vena cava filters (VCFs) are indicated in patients with active venous thromboembolism and are a contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation. When patients can be anticoagulated, VCFs can be removed; however, patients often have anticoagulation discontinued during the retrieval procedure, leaving them at risk for pulmonary embolism (PE). The authors evaluated their experience with retrieving VCFs in therapeutically anticoagulated patients. METHODS: Data from a prospectively collected database of patients with VCFs placed between January 2005 and September 2007 were reviewed. The retrievals in therapeutically anticoagulated patients (international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.4) were performed using a strict protocol, including preretrieval and postretrieval cavograms. All retrievals were performed in the operating room, and patients were discharged home the same day and examined within 7 to 14 days. Descriptive statistics including means and counts were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen VCF removals occurred during the study period; 62 were attempted on anticoagulated patients (42 male and 20 female patients; mean age, 36.5 years). Thirty-five patients (56%) had VCFs placed for prophylaxis, 22 (35%) had deep venous thromboses or PEs but had contraindications to anticoagulation, and 5 (8%) were on anticoagulation, which was discontinued perioperatively for major surgical operations. The mean time the filters were in place was 153.7 days (range, 22-684 days). No extravasation was seen on postretrieval cavography. Eight of 62 removal attempts in anticoagulated patients were unsuccessful. One patient had a postoperative pneumothorax that was successfully managed without intervention. There were no operative bleeding complications, and no hematomas or contusions were seen at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The retrieval of VCFs in therapeutically anticoagulated patients can be performed without complication. Given the perioperative risk for PE, anticoagulation should not be discontinued for VCF retrieval.

Extended interval for retrieval of vena cava filters is safe and may maximize protection against pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Retrieval of optional vena cava filters (VCF) has been demonstrated to be safe and feasible in injured patients in 4 recent studies. However, 2 pulmonary emboli PE were reported in these studies with mean implant durations less than 19 days. In light of these occurrences, we changed our practice for VCF retrieval when patients had recovered from their injuries and at least 30 days after their discharge, or had been stable on therapeutic anticoagulation for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or PE for at least 2 weeks. The aim of the current study was to assess the safety of this approach. METHODS: A review of prospectively collected data on optional VCF over a 16-month period. The filters were inserted prophylactically per an institutional practice guideline or for the presence of DVT or PE with a contraindication and/or complication to anticoagulation. All patients underwent duplex imaging of the lower extremities and had pre- and post- retrieval cavagrams. Demographics, duration of implantation, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients had optional VCF inserted since the change in our clinical practice. Indications included prophylaxis for high-risk trauma patients (n = 58), DVT or PE with acute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation (n = 22), or complications of anticoagulation (n = 3). Two patients developed lower extremity DVT after filter insertion and 1 patient developed a vena cava thrombosis. Retrieval was successful in 47 of 54 cases (87%) attempted. Median implantation duration was 142 days (range 17-475). A filter strut fracture occurred during retrieval without further consequences. No post-insertion or post-retrieval PE occurred in this study. CONCLUSION: Extended intervals for retrieval of VCF are safe and may maximize protection against pulmonary embolism.