
pmid: 30095670
ABSTRACT Background and purpose: This retrospective study compared nurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs) with physicians on their assignment of Emergency Severity Index level 3 (ESI level 3) acute abdominal pain (AAP) in the emergency department (ED). Methods: Data obtained from a large ED group staffing four hospitals yielded 12,440 de-identified, adult patients diagnosed on ED admission with AAP ESI level 3 for descriptive analysis with logistic regression. Conclusions: Results revealed that the comparison of ESI level 3 AAP diagnoses was consistent between admission and discharge 95.3% for physicians, 92.9% for NPs/PAs, and 97.1% for NP/PA and physician collaboration (χ2 = 46.01, p < .001). Logistic regression suggested that NP/PA had significantly reduced odds (31%) of consistent admitting/discharge diagnoses, whereas collaboration of NP/PA with physicians had significantly increased odds of consistent diagnosis (41%) compared with physicians alone. Two hospitals with similar distributions of NPs/PAs and physicians exhibited greater odds of consistent diagnoses over hospitals with disproportionate distributions; a secondary finding worth exploring. Consistent AAP ESI level 3 diagnoses by outcomes were admissions (>99%), discharges (94%), and left against medical advice/transferred (98%; χ2 = 102.94, p < .001). Implications for practice: The highest percentage of consistent AAP ESI level 3 diagnoses between ED admission and discharge was when NPs/PAs and physicians collaborated.
Adult, Male, Health Personnel, Middle Aged, Abdominal Pain, Physician Assistants, Physicians, Humans, Female, Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Competence, Emergency Service, Hospital
Adult, Male, Health Personnel, Middle Aged, Abdominal Pain, Physician Assistants, Physicians, Humans, Female, Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Competence, Emergency Service, Hospital
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 7 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
