what is the meaning of allowing nurses to perform at their full scope of practice

The Time to come of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health observes that the changing landscape of health care and the irresolute profile of the U.S. population will require fundamental shifts in the care delivery system (IOM, 2011). In particular, the report notes concerns about a shortage of primary intendance health professionals in the United States, particularly given the expansion of insurance coverage nether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). It suggests that advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), if permitted to practice to the full extent of their instruction and training, could aid build the workforce necessary to meet the country's primary care needs and contribute their unique skills to the commitment of patient-centered, community-based health care. While the Found of Medicine (IOM) report makes special mention of the function for APRNs in main care (run across Box 2-ane), the report'due south recommendations are not limited to those settings, but comprehend the full continuum of health services in many health arrangement and customs settings.

BOX 2-1

Recommendation 1 from The Hereafter of Nursing: Remove Scope-of-Practice Barriers.

The Hereafter of Nursing notes that although APRNs are highly trained and able to provide a variety of services, they are prevented from doing then because of barriers, including state laws, federal policies, outdated insurance reimbursement models, and institutional practices and culture (IOM, 2011). The study includes several specific policy recommendations for overcoming these barriers and providing APRNs with licensure, privileges, and reimbursement consistent with their education and training.

In particular, the report encourages policy makers to be guided by the National Quango of State Boards of Nursing's (NCSBN'Southward) Model Nursing Practice Act and Administrative Rules in efforts to change state scope-of-exercise laws (NCSBN, 2009). An agreement of the provisions of this act may be useful for understanding how "full do authority" has been defined and measured by NCSBN, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP), and the Future of Nursing: Campaign for Action (the Campaign) in their assessments of progress toward implementation of the study'southward recommendations. The NCSBN human activity includes a detailed set up of guidelines. In summarizing the status of telescopic-of-practice authority in the U.South. states and territories, the Entrada (CCNA, 2015) and AANP (2015) track progress in iii categories: full, reduced, and restricted practice (come across Figure 2-1 for definitions).

Figure 2-1

Activity AND PROGRESS

The Entrada reports that since the release of the IOM report, 44 state Action Coalitions accept worked on its recommendation to remove telescopic-of-practice barriers (meet Box 2-ane) (CCNA, 2014a). At the time the written report was published, 13 states were classified equally meeting criteria for full practice authority. Since the Campaign began, 8 more states (Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Isle, and Vermont) accept changed their laws to requite nurse practitioners (NPs) full practice and prescriptive authority, bringing the number of states with full authorisation to 21 (CCNA, 2015). Seventeen states are currently categorized as having reduced practice and 12 as having restricted practice (come across Figure 2-1). Some states—for case, Kentucky, New York, Texas, and Utah—have made incremental improvements to their laws but are still categorized by AANP and the Entrada as having reduced or restricted practice for APRNs (AANP, 2015; CCNA, 2014b, 2015). The Campaign uses information from AANP's State Nurse Do and Authoritative Rules to track total do authority, reduced practice, and restricted practice (AANP, 2015; CCNA, 2015).

These broad categorizations, while useful for classification purposes, mask a number of subtleties amid state laws. Maine, for example, a country with full practise authority, has express legislative prohibitions against NP hospital privileges (Pearson, 2014). NPs in this country must be supervised when caring for patients in a hospital setting. In Ohio, a state without full practice dominance, a bill was signed in 2014 that allows APRNs and medico assistants (PAs) to admit patients into hospitals.^{^ane} Some states do not accept legislative prohibitions per se, simply other regulatory impediments exist. In Texas, for case, "hospital licensing law does non include APRNs as medical staff members who may admit and discharge patients; nigh hospitals grant privileges to APRNs every bit allied wellness providers" (Pearson, 2014, p. 255).

In addition to changes at the country level, several of the bulleted points under the IOM report'due south recommendation ane (see Box two-ane) have been addressed through enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes at the federal level, as described below.

Congress

The ACA added a provision to the Public Health Service Deed that prohibits health insurers from discriminating "against any health care provider who is acting inside the scope of that provider'southward license or certification under applicable country law."^² That is, if a plan covers a specific service, the programme cannot deny coverage for the service based solely on the practitioner's license or certification.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

CMS issued a final rule in 2012 that broadens the concept of "medical staff," allowing hospitals to authorize "other practitioners . . . to practice in the hospital in accordance with Country law" (CMS, 2012, p. 29034). CMS notes that this modify "will clearly permit hospitals to allow other practitioners (e.g., APRNs, PAs, pharmacists) to perform all functions inside their scope of practice" (p. 29034). Despite this dominion, medical staff membership and hospital privileges remain subject to existing state law and concern preferences. Some other CMS rule, issued in 2014, clarifies that outpatient services may be ordered by whatever practitioner, regardless of whether he or she is on a medical staff, if the practitioner is interim inside his or her scope of exercise under state law (CMS, 2014). These rules employ to all hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid programs; even so, individual hospitals exercise have the selection to restrict practice.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

The FTC has engaged in competition advocacy relating to APRNs' scope of practice in many states (CCNA, 2014a). Specifically, the FTC has provided letters, comments, and/or testimony related to removing barriers to APRNs' practicing to the full extent of their education and training in Connecticut (FTC, 2013b), Florida (FTC, 2011a), Illinois (FTC, 2013a), Kentucky (FTC, 2012b), Louisiana (FTC, 2012a), Massachusetts (FTC, 2014a), Missouri (FTC, 2012c, 2015a), South Carolina (FTC, 2015b), Texas (FTC, 2011b), and West Virginia (FTC, 2012d). No cases take been brought past the FTC relating to APRN telescopic-of-do and anticompetition concerns^{^three}; all the same, the U.S. Supreme Court recently, in North Carolina Land Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Committee,^{^iv} sided with the FTC, which alleged that the Board's efforts to prevent nondentists from providing teeth-whitening services constituted an unfair method of competition under federal law.^⁵ The Board sought to dismiss the motion on grounds of state-action immunity. The Supreme Court ruling denied state-action amnesty from federal trade laws to professional boards representing a bulk of the regulated profession unless they are actively supervised past the state itself. The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, American Nurses Clan, AANP, American College of Nurse Midwives, National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists, and Denizen Advocacy Center—understanding the potential implications of the instance for nurse scope-of-practice regulation—filed an amicus cursory in the example in support of the FTC.^{^vi} In March 2014, the FTC released a paper stating that "dr. supervision requirements may raise competition concerns because they effectively give one group of wellness care professionals the ability to restrict admission to the market by some other, competing group of health care professionals, thereby denying health care consumers the benefits of greater competition" (FTC, 2014b, pp. 1-2).

Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

The VHA proposed in 2012 that its APRNs be permitted to practice independently throughout the VHA system, regardless of state scope-of-practice restrictions (VA, 2012). The proposal, which relies on the Supremacy Clause of the U.Due south. Constitution for authorization, has not been finalized, although a nib was introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2015 that would give statutory authorization to full APRN do in the VHA.^⁷ This proposal was a straight result of The Futurity of Nursing, with VHA nursing officials maxim that "the proposed change follows a 2010 Found of Medicine recommendation that nurses should practice to the total extent of their pedagogy and training" (Beck, 2014).

Give-and-take

APRN practice authorisation has been expanded considerably in the 5 years since the release of The Future of Nursing. Many organizations, in collaboration with or in addition to the Entrada and its state Action Coalitions, have worked to remove barriers that restricted APRNs from working to the full extent of their training and educational activity. Xx-one states now take full practise authorisation for APRNs, although several large states have not yet accomplished that goal. APRNs at present accept prescribing authority in 49 states, albeit with some restrictions for sure classes of medication. In those states where new scope-of-practice proposals accept met opposition, the major points of contention include requirements for APRN oversight by medical rather than nursing licensing boards; clinical oversight by or collaboration with physicians; and restrictions on APRNs' provision of a range of services, including hospital admitting privileges. Finding common ground on these points is a challenging process, equally evidenced by, for example, recent debates in California and Virginia. Even so, these debates and incremental steps yet arguably correspond progress, as exemplified by the successful resolution of a years-long process to remove scope-of-practice restrictions in Maryland.

In California, a bill^{^viii} that would have authorized certified NPs who had skillful nether the supervision of a dr. for at least four,160 hours to practice independently failed in 2013 after intense opposition from the California Medical Association (CMA). The CMA argued that, if passed, the beak would mean that "nurse practitioners will no longer need to piece of work pursuant to standardized protocols and procedures or any supervising physician and would basically give them a plenary license to practice medicine" (California Medical Association, 2013). The pecker did take the support of several other professional organizations and health insurers, but it was opposed past land and national physician organizations (Adashi, 2013).

In contrast, physician and NP groups collaborated to decrease restrictions in Virginia,^⁹ which is classified by AANP every bit a restrictive do state (AANP, 2015; Iglehart, 2013). In 2012, the Virginia state legislature unanimously voted to approve a bill that was the issue of negotiations betwixt the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Council of Nurse Practitioners. The nib requires NPs to work every bit role of a patient-care team that is led and managed by a physician, merely permits the supervision to occur via telemedicine and expands the number of NPs who can exist supervised past a physician from 4 to six. The American Medical Clan (AMA) viewed the compromise reached in Virginia as a possible model for other states; however, AANP was disappointed in the result.

Finally, the incremental gains made over a number of years in Maryland demonstrate the progress that can be achieved through persistent efforts. In 2008, telescopic-of-practice restrictions were loosened slightly when legislation^{^x} was passed permitting APRNs to sign birth and death certificates, advance directives, and applications for handicapped license tags. In 2010, restrictions were further reduced when a decades-old collaborative agreement between the Boards of Nursing and Physicians was replaced by an attestation statement.^¹¹ Finally, in 2015, the Certified Nurse Practitioners—Potency to Practise bill^¹² was signed into law, removing the attestation requirement and giving NPs full practice authorization.

Opposition by some physicians and doctor organizations has been noted equally a barrier to expansion of APRNs' telescopic of practice (Adashi, 2013; Hain and Bit, 2014; Iglehart, 2013; Walters, 2015). Upon the release of The Future of Nursing, several national physicians' organizations raised business organisation near the report's recommendation regarding telescopic-of-practice expansion:

American College of Physicians (ACP, 2010): "The IOM's emphasis on independent practice is at odds with the goal of ensuring that patients receive comprehensive and patient-centered intendance inside the context of a health care team. . . . Today, no i clinician should practice independently of other clinicians."
American Medical Association (AMA, 2010): "A physician-led team approach to intendance—with each member of the squad playing the role they are educated and trained to play—helps ensure patients get high quality care and value for their health intendance spending. . . . Nurses are disquisitional to the health intendance team, simply there is no substitute for education and training."
Quango of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS, 2010): "CMSS is concerned that the IOM report advocates for an expanded scope of nursing exercise without specifying the standard minimum amount of supervised clinical experience and documented clinical competency that must be accomplished before an APN would be permitted to treat and prescribe without medico guidance."

In an try to convalesce some of the tension between nurses and physicians, RWJF convened leaders of nurse and physician organizations in 2011 to develop a consensus certificate on interprofessional collaboration (Iglehart, 2013; RWJF, 2013). A typhoon study titled Common Ground: An Understanding Between Nurse and Dr. Leaders on Interprofessional Collaboration for the Future of Patient Care was produced post-obit a constructive dialogue. The draft report noted the shortage and maldistribution of primary intendance providers and emphasized the need for patient-centered care. It as well best-selling that nursing and medicine are not interchangeable professions and that the "captain-of-the-send notion needs to be refined for the 21st century" (RWJF, 2013, p. iii). Efforts to refine and publish the report ended when a leaked early draft drew opposition from physician organizations.

Despite the failure of these efforts, participants—including representatives from AACN, the American College of Physicians (ACP), the American Nurses Clan (ANA), the American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE), the National League for Nursing (NLN), the Nurse Practitioner Roundtable, and other organizations—expressed hope that the focus would remain on how interprofessional collaboration is in the best interest of the patient. Further, participants noted that interprofessional collaboration already occurs in the wellness intendance organisation and that common ground is frequently establish amongst health professionals, fifty-fifty if not among their associations. At the committee's May 2015 workshop, Steven Weinberger, Executive Vice President and CEO of ACP, continued to speak to the need for professional collaboration and for a focus on what is all-time for patients rather than professions:

I retrieve nosotros demand to alter the perspective from which nosotros're looking at this. Nosotros're looking at this from the perspective of "What does the medico population need?" "What does the nurse population need?" We have to look at this from the perspective of "What does the patient need?" And let'south get information technology away from the professions and say that for this given patient and this betoken in time, the best person to provide intendance is ten, y, or z.

Despite the political conflict between nursing and physician organizations and amongst the wide array of scope-of-practice restrictions, APRNs and physicians most commonly are working collaboratively on the ground. A recent qualitative study conducted in Massachusetts, a restricted exercise state, found that despite the state's scope-of-practice restrictions, some NPs described having a scope of practice like to that of their physician colleagues, and the "supervision" mandated by written agreements was variably enforced (Poghosyan et al., 2013). However, testimony provided for the present study suggested that such administrative restrictions may adversely affect patients by causing delays in referrals, orders for medical equipment, discharges to habitation or hospice, and other services (Lamprecht, 2015).

The Time to come of Nursing does non call for nurses to supersede doctors. It does recommend that "advanced practice registered nurses should exist able to practice to the full extent of their education and training" (IOM, 2011, p. 278). In new collaborative models of practice, it is imperative that all health professionals practice to the full extent of their education and training to optimize the efficiency and quality of services for patients. The term "independent practice" has become a charged term for some md groups, which view it as implying solo or competitive practice. Withal, considerable testimony provided for the present study supported viewing this term every bit meaning the total practice authority to use 1'south education and grooming. Full practise say-so for APRNs, equally for all wellness professionals, is ideally part of an organized, collaborative organisation of intendance.

Enquiry conducted with NPs and physicians since The Hereafter of Nursing was released provides perspectives of practicing clinicians on some of these bug. While state and federal efforts to reduce scope-of-practise restrictions were ongoing, the Health Resources and Services Assistants (HRSA) conducted a national survey of NPs in 2012 (HRSA, 2014a). Among those surveyed, 11 per centum were working without a doc on-site, and 84 percent indicated they were practicing "to the fullest extent of the state's legal scope of practice" (pp. 9-10). Some other survey of master care NPs conducted in the same year found that 75 per centum were practicing to the "total extent of their didactics and training" (the key message of the IOM report) (Donelan et al., 2013, p. 1900), and eight percentage of NPs worked in a principal care practice without a md and billed for all their services under their own National Provider Identifier (NPI) (Buerhaus et al., 2015). Fully 96 percent of master intendance NPs and 76 percent of primary care physicians surveyed in 2013 agreed that NPs should exist able to practise to the total extent of their education and training, reflecting a broad, if uneven, consensus around this core message (Donelan et al., 2013). Primary care NPs and physicians largely agreed that increasing the supply of NPs could enhance admission to and the timeliness of primary care, but they disagreed about issues of reimbursement and quality of services provided.

Evidence published since the release of The Future of Nursing underscores previous enquiry supporting removal of restrictions on scope of practice, showing that APRNs provide high-quality intendance with good patient outcomes (e.thou., fewer avoidable hospitalizations, readmissions, and emergency room visits) in a wide variety of settings (Donald et al., 2013; Kilpatrick et al., 2014; Kuo et al., 2015; Lewis et al., 2014; Newhouse et al., 2011; Stanik-Hutt et al., 2013). APRNs continue to have an peculiarly of import role in delivering chief care services in rural areas and in medically underserved communities where main care shortages are documented and md oversight may not be locally available (Buerhaus et al., 2015; DesRoches et al., 2013). While APRNs frequently assume substantial responsibilities in delivering high-quality health intendance, regulatory and payment practices remain barriers to their existence able to practice to the total extent of their pedagogy and training (Poghosyan et al., 2013; Stange, 2014; Yee et al., 2013). These findings suggest that further removal of scope-of-do restrictions could have a positive bear upon on wellness care access and quality.

While The Futurity of Nursing places a strong emphasis on the importance of building the APRN workforce to meet the growing demands for principal care in a time of insurance expansion and shortages of primary care physicians, the 2012 HRSA National Sample Survey of Nurse Practitioners found that merely 39.2 percent of all licensed NPs were working in primary care; the proportion was college (47.4 per centum) when calculated as the percentage of NPs who were currently employed in patient care roles (HRSA, 2014a). These estimates were consistent with those from the 2008 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses (RNs) (HRSA, 2010) and inquiry supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, 2011). Amid the NP respondents to the 2012 HRSA survey employed in patient care roles, 59 per centum of those who had graduated in 1992 or earlier were working in main care, compared with 42 percent of those who had graduated between 2003 and 2007. Among more recent graduates since 2008, the proportion in principal care was 47 percent. Despite the drop in the proportion of NPs who practice main care, however, the percentage is still far higher than the percentage of physicians entering chief intendance (Chen et al., 2013), and the total number of master care NPs is rising. Researchers have projected that by 2025, the number of primary care NPs in the United States will increase to 103,000 from the threescore,407 measured in 2012 (Auerbach et al., 2013; HRSA, 2014a).

The committee that conducted the present study acknowledges that shortages of primary care providers, both nurses and physicians, remain a challenge in the The states (AHRQ, 2011; HRSA, 2013, 2014b; Petterson et al., 2012). However, the commission does not believe that the move toward specialty intendance detracts from the original intent of The Time to come of Nursing recommendations; rather, that it offers additional context for the value and implications of scope-of-practise expansion, and it too offers new focus for the Entrada. In add-on, information technology reinforces the importance of collaborative exercise among a full array of health professionals equally the model for health intendance for the future in both primary and specialty intendance.

As discussed in Chapter 1, passage of the ACA and a number of transformations in the wellness care organization have created a new context emphasizing the goal of providing value-based care and engaging in collaborative do for all patients. Providers and health systems are increasingly beingness held accountable for patient outcomes, with a new emphasis on the "Triple Aim" for health intendance—improved health, improved health care, and reduced costs. While information technology should exist noted that cost did not gene into the recommendation of The Hereafter of Nursing, there is in this irresolute context of affordability and value a renewed focus on achieving higher quality at lower cost and with greater efficiency. Scope-of-practice expansion may contribute to the aim of lowering costs, specially in the context of interdisciplinary teams (Sinsky et al., 2013). It makes sense that in several models of care, specially in primary care settings, there is greater accent on team-based care to ensure that of import services are provided through collaboration among all team members and a sharing of power and trust among the professionals involved (Gardner, 2005; Sinsky et al., 2013; Wen and Schulman, 2014). MacNaughton and colleagues (2013) contend that agreement 1's contribution within a squad and existence able to perform that role apart, while recognizing the unique roles of other team members, facilitates collaboration. Several new initiatives in teaching and do are part of national efforts both to foster interprofessional instruction and practice and to break down the barriers that exist when professionals are educated in silos (see Chapter v).

Much research has been done on a "fourth aim" beyond the Triple Aim—to improve "the work life of health care providers, including clinicians and staff" (Bodenheimer and Sinsky, 2014). Exhaustion amidst wellness care providers is associated with lower patient satisfaction and worse patient outcomes, including higher bloodshed rates (Aiken et al., 2002; Leiter et al., 1998; Poghosyan et al., 2010; Shanafelt et al., 2012; Stimpfel et al., 2012; Vahey et al., 2004). Several studies have shown that expanded squad scope and roles and support for high-functioning teams enhance satisfaction amid providers. Sinsky and colleagues (2013) reinforced this association of "joy of exercise" and expanded roles for all team members with enhanced squad satisfaction and better outcomes in an intensive study of loftier-functioning practices. This quaternary aim for health care, which research shows is increasingly associated with the goals of the Triple Aim, is an important contextual modify since The Future of Nursing was released, and it offers potential common ground for that report's goals for scope-of-exercise expansion. Information technology also suggests that those goals need to be part of a larger effort to expand the telescopic and function of many clinical squad members and so every bit to improve outcomes and reduce burnout. In reaction to The Futurity of Nursing, ACP (2010) said, "today, no ane clinician should practice independently of other clinicians" (p. one). Appropriately, this may exist an opportune time for discussions about how mutual support of scope expansion can back up squad-based intendance and reduce provider burnout.

FINDINGS AND Conclusion

Significant progress has been made toward reducing scope-of-practice restrictions nationwide. As the wellness care environment continues to evolve and to demand more value-based care, the total contribution of APRNs and other wellness intendance providers is critical. Equally health care reform expands access to care, states with restrictive laws for NPs are limiting access and the potential for APRNs to contribute fully to health care and to the optimal functioning of the health care team. More states are allowing NPs full practise authority as primary care providers. Moving forrard, more efforts are needed to piece of work with a broader coalition of stakeholders and providers to converge around bug of scope-of-practice restrictions and advocate for legislation that supports full practice authority for APRNs.

Findings

This study yielded the following findings on nursing care and scope of practice:

Finding 2-i. APRNs provide high-quality care to patients.

Finding ii-2. Progress has been fabricated toward expanding telescopic of exercise for APRNs, either fully or incrementally.

Finding ii-three. Physician organizations' opposition to expansion of telescopic of practice for APRNs remains a significant obstacle.

Finding 2-4. Health care is moving toward interdisciplinary, interdependent teams of health intendance professionals that are able to provide more comprehensive services.

Finding two-5. Prove demonstrates that expanded team scope and roles besides as loftier-functioning teams heighten satisfaction among health intendance providers. Provider burnout is associated with lower patient satisfaction and worse patient outcomes, including higher mortality rates.

Conclusion

The committee drew the following conclusion about progress toward removing barriers to practice and care:

Continued piece of work is needed to remove scope-of-practise barriers. The policy and practice context has shifted since The Future of Nursing was released. This shift has created an opportunity for nurses, physicians, and other providers to work together to notice common ground in the new context of health care, and to devise solutions that work for all professions and patients.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation i: Build Common Ground Around Scope of Exercise and Other Issues in Policy and Practise. The Future of Nursing: Campaign for Action (the Entrada) should broaden its coalition to include more diverse stakeholders. The Entrada should build on its successes and work with other health professions groups, policy makers, and the community to build common ground around removing scope-of-exercise restrictions, increasing interprofessional collaboration, and addressing other issues to improve health care practice in the interest of patients.

REFERENCES

ACP (American College of Physicians). The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health. 2010. [September 23, 2015]. (American Higher of Physicians response to the Institute of Medicine's report). https://world wide web.acponline.org/newsroom/future_nursing_release.pdf.
AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). Primary care workforce facts and stats no. ii: The number of nurse practitioners and physician administration practicing primary care in the United States. 2011. [Nov seven, 2015]. http://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/pcwork2.pdf.
Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Sloane DM, Sochalski J, Silber JH. Infirmary nurse staffing and patient mortality, nurse burnout, and job dissatisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;288(16):1987–1993. [PubMed: 12387650]
Auerbach DI, Chen PG, Friedberg MW, Reid R, Lau C, Buerhaus PI, Mehrotra A. Nurse-managed health centers and patient-centered medical homes could mitigate expected primary care physician shortage. Wellness Affairs. 2013;32(11):1933–1941. [PubMed: 24191083]
Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: Care of the patient requires intendance of the provider. Register of Family Medicine. 2014;12(half-dozen):573–576. [PMC complimentary article: PMC4226781] [PubMed: 25384822]
Buerhaus PI, DesRoches CM, Dittus R, Donelan K. Practice characteristics of primary care nurse practitioners and physicians. Nursing Outlook. 2015;63(2):144–153. [PubMed: 25261383]
CCNA (Center to Champion Nursing in America). Futurity of Nursing: Entrada for Action presentation, December 19, 2014. Washington, DC: CCNA; 2014a. unpublished.
CCNA. Progress on removing barriers to APRN practice and intendance. Washington, DC: CCNA; 2014b. unpublished.
Chen C, Petterson S, Phillips RL, Mullan F, Bazemore A, O'Donnell SD. Towards graduate medical education (GME) accountability: Measuring the outcomes of GME institutions. Bookish Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2013;88(9):1267–1280. [PMC costless article: PMC3761381] [PubMed: 23752037]
CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). Medicare and Medicaid programs; reform of hospital and critical access infirmary atmospheric condition of participation. Federal Annals. 2012;77(95):29034–29076. [PubMed: 22606738]
CMS. Medicare and Medicaid programs; regulatory provisions to promote program efficiency, transparency, and brunt reduction; part II. Federal Register. 2014;79(91):27106–27157. [PubMed: 24818301]
DesRoches CM, Gaudet J, Perloff J, Donelan Thousand, Iezzoni L, Buerhaus P. Using Medicare data to assess nurse practitioner-provided care. Nursing Outlook. 2013;61(6):400–407. [PubMed: 23870733]
Donald F, Martin-Misener R, Carter N, Donald EE, Kaasalainen South, Wickson-Griffiths A, Lloyd M, Akhtar-Danesh Due north, DiCenso A. A systematic review of the effectiveness of advanced practice nurses in long-term care. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013;69(10):2148–2161. [PubMed: 23527481]
Donelan K, DesRoches CM, Dittus RS, Buerhaus P. Perspectives of physicians and nurse practitioners on primary intendance practice. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368(twenty):1898–1906. [PubMed: 23675658]
FTC. Policy perspectives: Contest and the regulation of avant-garde exercise nurses. Washington, DC: FTC; 2014b.
HRSA. Projecting the supply and demand for primary care practitioners through 2020. Rockville, Doc: U.S. Section of Health and Human Services; 2013.
HRSA. The futurity of the nursing workforce: national- and state-level projections, 2012-2025. Rockville, Medico: U.South. Department of Health and Human Services; 2014b.
Iglehart JK. Expanding the part of advanced nurse practitioners—risks and rewards. New England Periodical of Medicine. 2013;368:1935–1941. [PubMed: 23675663]
IOM (Found of Medicine). The time to come of nursing: Leading alter, advancing health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Printing; 2011. [PubMed: 24983041]
Kilpatrick K, Kaasalainen Southward, Donald F, Reid K, Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, Martin-Misener R, Harbman P, Marshall DA, Charbonneau-Smith R, DiCenso A. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical nurse specialists in outpatient roles: A systematic review. Periodical of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2014;twenty:1106–1123. [PubMed: 25040492]
Kuo Y, Chen Northward, Baillargeon J, Raji MA, Goodwin JS. Potentially preventable hospitalizations in Medicare patients with diabetes: A comparison of primary care provided by nurse practitioners versus doctors. Medical Care. 2015;53(9):776–783. [PMC free commodity: PMC4536572] [PubMed: 26270826]
Lamprecht S. The future of nursing: Leading alter, advancing health. Washington, DC: 2015. [July 28, 2015]. (Presentation to IOM Committee for Assessing Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Constitute of Medicine Report The Future of Nursing: Leading Modify, Advancing Health).
Leiter MP, Harvie P, Frizzell C. The correspondence of patient satisfaction and nurse burnout. Social Science & Medicine. 1998;47(10):1611–1617. [PubMed: 9823056]
Lewis SR, Nicholson A, Smith AF, Alderson P. Doctor anaesthetists versus nonphysician providers of amazement for surgical patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014;7 [PubMed: 25019298]
Newhouse RP, Stanik-Hutt J, White KM, Johantgen M, Bass EB, Zangaro Thou, Wilson RR, Fountain Fifty, Steinwachs DM, Heindel 50, Weiner JP. Avant-garde practice nurse outcomes 1990-2008: A systematic review. Nursing Economics. 2011;29(5):ane–21. [PubMed: 22372080]
Pearson Fifty. 2014 Pearson Study. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC; 2014.
Petterson SM, Liaw WR, Phillips RL, Rabin DL, Meyers DS, Bazemore AW. Projecting United states of america primary care doctor workforce needs: 2010-2025. Annals of Family Medicine. 2012;10(vi):503–509. [PMC free article: PMC3495923] [PubMed: 23149526]
Poghosyan L, Clarke SP, Finlayson M, Aiken LH. Nurse exhaustion and quality of care: Cross-national investigation in half-dozen countries. Research in Nursing & Wellness. 2010;33(4):288–298. [PMC free article: PMC2908908] [PubMed: 20645421]
Poghosyan L, Nannini A, Smaldone A, Clarke S, O'Rourke NC, Rosato BG, Berkowitz B. Revisiting scope of practice facilitators and barriers for primary care nurse practitioners: A qualitative investigation. Policy, Politics & Nursing Exercise. 2013;fourteen(i):6–fifteen. [PubMed: 23528433]
Shanafelt TD, Boone S, Tan L, Dyrbye LN, Sotile M, Satele D, West CP, Sloan J, Oreskovich MR. Burnout and satisfaction with piece of work-life balance among U.Southward. physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Athenaeum of Internal Medicine. 2012;172(eighteen):1377–1385. [PubMed: 22911330]
Sinsky CA, Willard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, Margolius D, Bodenheimer T. In search of joy in practice: A report of 23 high-functioning master care practices. Annals of Family Medicine. 2013;11(3):272–278. [PMC free article: PMC3659145] [PubMed: 23690328]
Stange Thou. How does provider supply and regulation influence health care markets? Evidence from nurse practitioners and md administration. Journal of Health Economics. 2014;33:1–27. [PubMed: 24240144]
Stanik-Hutt J, Newhouse RP, White KM, Johantgen Thou, Bass EB, Zangaro Yard, Wilson R, Fountain L, Steinwachs DM, Heindel L, Weiner JP. The quality and effectiveness of care provided by nurse practitioners. Periodical for Nurse Practitioners. 2013;9(8):492–500.
Stimpfel AW, Sloane DM, Aiken LH. The longer the shifts for hospital nurses, the higher the levels of exhaustion and patient dissatisfaction. Health Diplomacy. 2012;31(xi):2501–2509. [PMC free article: PMC3608421] [PubMed: 23129681]
Vahey DC, Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Clarke SP, Vargas D. Nurse burnout and patient satisfaction. Medical Care. 2004;42(Suppl. 2):II57–II66. [PMC complimentary article: PMC2904602] [PubMed: 14734943]
Wen J, Schulman KA. Tin can team-based care better patient satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE. 2014;ix(seven):i–9. [PMC free article: PMC4094385] [PubMed: 25014674]
Yee, Boukus TE, Cross D, Samuel D. Primary care workforce shortages: Nurse practitioner scope-of-practice laws and payment policies. Washington, DC: National Institute for Health Care Reform; 2013. (NIHCR Research Brief no 13).

i
2: 42 U.South.C. § 300gg-5 Non-discrimination in Health Care.
iii
4: Northward Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners 5. Federal Trade Committee, 574 U.S. ___ (2015).
5: Federal Trade Committee Act. 15 U.s.a.C. §§ 45(a)(ane).
6: Cursory of the American Clan of Nurse Anesthetists, American Nurses Association, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American College of Nurse Midwives, National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists, and the Denizen Advocacy Centre as Amici Curiae in Support of the Respondent, Due north Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners five. Federal Merchandise Committee, No. 13-534, Supreme Court of the United states of america, filed August 5, 2014.
7: Frontlines to Lifelines Deed of 2015, S. 297, 114th Cong.
8
nine
ten
11
12

pringleprining.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK350160/