Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Department of Internal Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Crit Care Med. 2019 May;47(5):722-730. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003667.
To evaluate the effects on quality and efficiency of implementation of the advanced practice provider in critical care.
PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were used to extract articles regarding advanced practice providers in critical care.
Articles were selected when reporting a comparison between advanced practice providers and physician resident/fellows regarding the outcome measures of mortality, length of stay, or specific tasks. Descriptive studies without comparison were excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies was rated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The agreement between the reviewers was assessed with Cohen's kappa. A meta-analysis was constructed on mortality and length of stay.
One-hundred fifty-six studies were assessed by full text. Thirty comparative cohort studies were selected and analyzed. These compared advanced practice providers with physician resident/fellows. All studies comprised adult intensive care. Most of the included studies showed a moderate to good quality. Over time, the study designs advanced from retrospective designs to include prospective and comparative designs.
Four random effects meta-analyses on length of stay and mortality were constructed from the available studies. These meta-analyses showed no significant difference between performance of advanced practice providers on the ICU and physician residents/fellows on the ICU, suggesting the quality of care of both groups was equal. Mean difference for length of stay on the ICU was 0.34 (95% CI, -0.31 to 1.00; I = 99%) and for in hospital length of stay 0.02 (95% CI, -0.85 to 0.89; I = 91%); whereas the odds ratio for ICU mortality was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.81-1.19; I = 37.3%) and for hospital mortality 0.92 (95% CI, 0.79-1.07; I = 28%).
This review and meta-analysis shows no differences between acute care given by advanced practice providers compared with physician resident/fellows measured as length of stay or mortality. However, advanced practice providers might add value to care in several other ways, but this needs further study.
评估重症监护中高级执业医师对实施质量和效率的影响。
使用 PubMed、Embase、The Cochrane Library 和 CINAHL 检索有关重症监护高级执业医师的文章。
当报告高级执业医师与住院医师/研究员在死亡率、住院时间或特定任务方面的结果测量值的比较时,选择报告。排除没有比较的描述性研究。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评价纳入研究的方法学质量。评估审稿人之间的一致性采用 Cohen's kappa。对死亡率和住院时间进行了荟萃分析。
通过全文评估了 156 项研究。选择并分析了 30 项比较队列研究。这些研究将高级执业医师与住院医师/研究员进行了比较。所有研究均包括成人重症监护。纳入的大多数研究显示出中等至良好的质量。随着时间的推移,研究设计从回顾性设计发展到包括前瞻性和比较性设计。
根据现有研究,构建了 4 项关于住院时间和死亡率的随机效应荟萃分析。这些荟萃分析显示,重症监护病房高级执业医师与住院医师/研究员的表现之间没有显著差异,这表明两组的护理质量相当。重症监护病房住院时间的平均差值为 0.34(95%CI,-0.31 至 1.00;I = 99%),住院时间的平均差值为 0.02(95%CI,-0.85 至 0.89;I = 91%);而 ICU 死亡率的优势比为 0.98(95%CI,0.81-1.19;I = 37.3%),医院死亡率的优势比为 0.92(95%CI,0.79-1.07;I = 28%)。
本综述和荟萃分析表明,在住院时间或死亡率方面,高级执业医师与住院医师/研究员提供的急性护理没有差异。然而,高级执业医师可能以其他几种方式为护理增加价值,但这需要进一步研究。