Cargando…

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 structur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Austin, Annie, Jeffries, Kellyann, Krause, Diana, Sugalski, Jessica, Sharrah, Karen, Gross, Anne, Bowers, Danielle, Mulkerin, Daniel, Brandt, Nancy, Begue, Aaron, Bell, Rose, Raczyk, Cheryl, Pickard, Todd, Johnson, David, Dest, Vanna, Randall, Rory, Zecha, Gabrielle, Kennedy, Kate
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Harborside Press LLC 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504930/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34671501
http://dx.doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2021.12.7.5
Descripción
Sumario: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.