Scope of practice and autonomy of physician assistants in rural versus urban emergency departments.

OBJECTIVES: This was a study of the scope of practice and autonomy of emergency medicine (EM) physician assistants (PAs) practicing in rural versus urban emergency departments (EDs).
METHODS: Using the American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA) Masterfile, a random sample of 200 U.S. EM PAs were surveyed, with oversampling of an additional 200 rural PAs. Location was classified by zip code-based rural-urban commuting area codes, and responses were compared about conditions managed, procedures performed, and physician supervision between rural versus urban groups.
RESULTS: A total of 237 responses were received from PAs in 44 U.S. states, of which (201) were valid responses (105 rural, 96 urban) from PAs currently practicing in EDs (59.3% exclusion-adjusted response rate). Compared to urban PAs, rural PAs more frequently managed cardiac arrest (67% vs. 44%), stroke (86% vs. 72%), multisystem trauma (83% vs. 70%), active labor (44% vs. 23%), and critically ill children (82% vs. 65%) in the past year. They were more likely to have performed intubation (65% vs. 44%), needle thoracostomy (21% vs. 8%), and tube thoracostomy (46% vs. 26%). Rural PAs more often reported never having a physician present in the ED (38% vs. 0%) and less often reported always having a physician present (50% vs. 98%). Rural PAs were also less likely to report that a physician evaluates more than 75% of their patients (8% vs. 18%) and more likely that a physician never evaluates all of their patients (19% vs. 7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Rural PAs reported a broader scope of practice, more autonomy, and less access to physician supervision than urban PAs.