1994
DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.1994.02170120033005
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts

Comparison of Neonatal Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, and Residents in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
61
8
3
0

Citation Types

0
39
0
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
70
1

Relationship

0
71

Authors

Journals

citations

Cited by 71 publications

(39 citation statements)
references

References 13 publications

0
39
0
0
Order By: Relevance
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…8 Previous reports that have compared outcomes between residents and MLPs found no differences in mortality, adverse events, readmissions, and patient satisfaction between MLP-associated (specifically, physician assistant) and resident-associated hospitalist services. 9,10 We also found statistically higher physician-related HCAHPS scores and ''physician time with patient'' Press Ganey scores for patients on covered services. Neither survey, however, is specific to provider type, with HCAHPS referring to ''the doctors'' (which could be one or a combination of attending, resident, MLP, or student) and Press Ganey using ''the physician'' (again, open to interpretation).…”
Section: Discussion
mentioning
confidence: 55%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…8 Previous reports that have compared outcomes between residents and MLPs found no differences in mortality, adverse events, readmissions, and patient satisfaction between MLP-associated (specifically, physician assistant) and resident-associated hospitalist services. 9,10 We also found statistically higher physician-related HCAHPS scores and ''physician time with patient'' Press Ganey scores for patients on covered services. Neither survey, however, is specific to provider type, with HCAHPS referring to ''the doctors'' (which could be one or a combination of attending, resident, MLP, or student) and Press Ganey using ''the physician'' (again, open to interpretation).…”
Section: Discussion
mentioning
confidence: 55%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…22 A number of studies have focused on outcomes of NPs and PAs in both ambulatory and hospital settings and have substantiated the benefit of NPs and PAs in improving length of stay, mortality, adverse events, continuity of care, increasing adherence to best practice guidelines, and enhancing communication, collaboration, and education. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] However, our analysis showed that most academic centers had not measured the impact of NP-or PA-led interventions; those that did measure reported that the impact was usually very isolated and difficult to quantify. Most did not track patient outcomes related to NP and PA care, primarily because of an inability to match patients to providers.…”
Section: Discussion
mentioning
confidence: 99%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Over the years, PAs have increasingly assumed the role of hospital-based health practitioners. [35][36][37][38] The scope of PA practice has broadened to comprise the care of hospitalized patients in many arenas, 24,26,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] such as neonatal, critical care, emergency department, 40,[45][46][47][48] and trauma care. 25 They have progressed into the institutional sphere with ease; in many circumstances, they supplement or supplant roles once held exclusively by physician house staff and act as assistants to specialists and superspecialists.…”
Section: Discussion
mentioning
confidence: 99%