PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess whether the quality of diabetes care differs among practices employing nurse-practitioners (NPs), physician's assistants (PAs), or neither, and which practice attributes contribute to any differences in care. METHODS: This cross-sectional study of 46 family medicine practices from New Jersey and Pennsylvania measured adherence to American Diabetes Association diabetes guidelines via chart audits of 846 patients with diabetes. Practice characteristics were identified by staff surveys. Hierarchical models determined differences between practices with and without NPs or PAs. RESULTS: Compared with practices employing PAs, practices employing NPs were more likely to measure hemoglobin A(1c) levels (66% vs 33%), lipid levels (80% vs 58%), and urinary microalbumin levels (32% vs 6%); to have treated for high lipid levels (77% vs 56%); and to have patients attain lipid targets (54% vs 37%) (P <or= .005 for each). Practices with NPs were more likely than physician-only practices to assess hemoglobin A(1c) levels (66% vs 49%) and lipid levels (80% vs 68%) (P<or=.007 for each). These effects could not be attributed to use of diabetes registries, health risk assessments, nurses for counseling, or patient reminder systems. Practices with either PAs or NPs were perceived as busier (P=.03) and had larger total staff (P <.001) than physician-only practices. CONCLUSIONS: Family practices employing NPs performed better than those with physicians only and those employing PAs, especially with regard to diabetes process measures. The reasons for these differences are not clear.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess whether the quality of diabetes care differs among practices employing nurse-practitioners (NPs), physician's assistants (PAs), or neither, and which practice attributes contribute to any differences in care. METHODS: This cross-sectional study of 46 family medicine practices from New Jersey and Pennsylvania measured adherence to American Diabetes Association diabetes guidelines via chart audits of 846 patients with diabetes. Practice characteristics were identified by staff surveys. Hierarchical models determined differences between practices with and without NPs or PAs. RESULTS: Compared with practices employing PAs, practices employing NPs were more likely to measure hemoglobin A(1c) levels (66% vs 33%), lipid levels (80% vs 58%), and urinary microalbumin levels (32% vs 6%); to have treated for high lipid levels (77% vs 56%); and to have patients attain lipid targets (54% vs 37%) (P <or= .005 for each). Practices with NPs were more likely than physician-only practices to assess hemoglobin A(1c) levels (66% vs 49%) and lipid levels (80% vs 68%) (P<or=.007 for each). These effects could not be attributed to use of diabetes registries, health risk assessments, nurses for counseling, or patient reminder systems. Practices with either PAs or NPs were perceived as busier (P=.03) and had larger total staff (P <.001) than physician-only practices. CONCLUSIONS: Family practices employing NPs performed better than those with physicians only and those employing PAs, especially with regard to diabetes process measures. The reasons for these differences are not clear.
Authors: Eric B Larson; Stephan D Fihn; Lynne M Kirk; Wendy Levinson; Ronald V Loge; Eileen Reynolds; Lewis Sandy; Steven Schroeder; Neil Wenger; Mark Williams Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Deborah Cohen; Reuben R McDaniel; Benjamin F Crabtree; Mary C Ruhe; Sharon M Weyer; Alfred Tallia; William L Miller; Meredith A Goodwin; Paul Nutting; Leif I Solberg; Stephen J Zyzanski; Carlos R Jaén; Valerie Gilchrist; Kurt C Stange Journal: J Healthc Manag Date: 2004 May-Jun
Authors: James C Martin; Robert F Avant; Marjorie A Bowman; John R Bucholtz; John R Dickinson; Kenneth L Evans; Larry A Green; Douglas E Henley; Warren A Jones; Samuel C Matheny; Janice E Nevin; Sandra L Panther; James C Puffer; Richard G Roberts; Denise V Rodgers; Roger A Sherwood; Kurt C Stange; Cynthia W Weber Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Elizabeth R Lenz; Mary O'Neil Mundinger; Sarah C Hopkins; Susan X Lin; Janice L Smolowitz Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2002 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Douglas W Roblin; David H Howard; Edmund R Becker; E Kathleen Adams; Melissa H Roberts Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Vincenza Snow; Mark D Aronson; E Rodney Hornbake; Christel Mottur-Pilson; Kevin B Weiss Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-04-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Daniel H Solomon; Asaf Bitton; Liana Fraenkel; Erika Brown; Peter Tsao; Jeffrey N Katz Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Yong-Fang Kuo; James S Goodwin; Nai-Wei Chen; Kyaw K Lwin; Jacques Baillargeon; Mukaila A Raji Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Usha Subramanian; Eve A Kerr; Mandi L Klamerus; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Robert G Holleman; Timothy P Hofer Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 2.229