Understanding the role of advanced practice providers in oncology in the United States.

PURPOSE: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include NPs and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all APPs in oncology and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. METHODS: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. RESULTS: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577 out of 3,055, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is about $10,000 higher than average pay for APPs not in oncology. CONCLUSION: We identified 5,350 APPs in oncology and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.

Team-Based Care in Oncology: The Impact of the Advanced Practice Provider.

Integration of APPs into care teams affects quality and safety for the oncology patient. Learn the best practices and understand the concepts of onboarding, orientation, mentorship, scope of practice, and top of license. Review how productivity and other incentive programs can be adapted to integrate APPs and focus on team-based metrics.

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.

Telehealth in Oncology: ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies. STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE: Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Drug Enforcement Administration Rescheduling of Hydrocodone Combination Products Is Associated With Changes in Physician Pain Management Prescribing Preferences.

Due to rising misuse, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) moved hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) from DEA Schedule III to DEA Schedule II in October 2014. Aside from increasing regulatory scrutiny, rescheduling may have increased the administrative burden surrounding HCP prescribing. This study explored how HCP rescheduling and associated administrative barriers may have affected physician treatment of acute (aNCP) and chronic (cNCP) noncancer pain. To this end, physician members of the Texas Medical Association completed a self-administered online questionnaire. Pharmacotherapy treatment plan was measured with two questions asking physicians whether they were more likely to recommend HCPs, acetaminophen/codeine (APAP/codeine), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tramadol, or other agents for the treatment of aNCP and cNCP. Two Likert-scaled items were used to assess administrative burden. In total, 1365 physicians responded (response rate = 15.39%). Physicians more frequently selected APAP/codeine (37%) for aNCP and tramadol (44%) for cNCP. A majority (78.8%) of physicians agreed that rescheduling led to modified prescribing, and those in agreement were significantly less likely than those who disagreed to prescribe HCPs for aNCP (24.2% vs. 56.4%; χ2 = 68.6, P < .001) and cNCP (16.9% vs. 37%; χ2 = 36.1, P < .001). Rescheduling and associated administrative burden are both associated with modified physician HCP prescribing in both aNCP and cNCP.

Understanding the Role of Advanced Practice Providers in Oncology in the United States.

PURPOSE: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all oncology APPs and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. METHODS: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. RESULTS: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is approximately $10,000 higher than average pay for nononcology APPs. CONCLUSION: We identified 5,350 oncology APPs and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.

Understanding the Role of Advanced Practice Providers in Oncology in the United States.

Purpose: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all oncology APPs and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. Methods: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. Results: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/ oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/ gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is approximately $10,000 higher than average pay for nononcology APPs. Conclusion: We identified 5,350 oncology APPs and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.

Understanding the Role of Advanced Practice Providers in Oncology in the United States.

PURPOSE: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims to identify all oncology APPs and to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. METHODS: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. RESULTS: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as White (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs = 94%; PAs = 98%), prescribing (NPs = 93%; PAs = 97%), treatment management (NPs = 89%; PAs = 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs = 81%; PAs = 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is approximately $10,000 higher than average pay for nononcology APPs. CONCLUSION: We identified 5,350 oncology APPs and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care.

Planning for the future: the role of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in survivorship care.

The number of cancer survivors in the United States now approaches 12 million individuals, with an estimated 7.2% of the general population aged 18 years or older reporting a previous cancer diagnosis. These figures highlight a number of questions about the care of survivors-how patients at risk for a known set of health problems should be followed, by whom, and for how long. At the same time that oncologists are developing strategies to provide services to this growing population, there are economic and systems challenges that have relevance to the previous questions, including a predicted national shortage of physicians to provide oncology services. Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have been identified as members of the health care team who can help reduce the oncology supply and demand gap in a number of ways. The ASCO Study of Collaborative Practice Arrangements (SCPA) in 2011 concluded that oncology patients were aware and satisfied when their care was provided by NPs and PAs; there was an increase in productivity in practices that utilized NPs and PAs; utilizing the full scope of practice of NPs and PAs was financially advantageous; and, physicians, NPs, and PAs are highly satisfied with their collaborative practices. Increasingly, the oncology and health policy literature contains evidence supporting innovative provider models. There is still much work to be done to move beyond pilot data to establish the true value of these models.