Nurse Practitioner Roles in Pediatric Emergency Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED) visits continue to climb in the United States despite numerous primary care initiatives. A variety of staffing models including the utilization of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) and the use of fast-track or express care are alternative methods of caring for the ED patients with less acute illness. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of NPs in pediatric EDs (PEDs) and fast-track areas and to identify common procedures performed by NPs in PEDs. METHODS: Two telephone surveys were conducted. The first survey was performed with the ED charge nurse at all 205 hospitals in the United States participating in the National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions. The second survey consisted of an interview with NPs working in those PEDs. Both descriptive data as well as the procedures performed by NPs in the PED were collected. RESULTS: A total of 198 hospitals completed the first survey (97% response rate), representing 41 states. Fifty-one percent of respondents reported using NPs in the ED, contrasted with only 36% who reported using PAs (P < 0.01). The use of NPs was found to be distributed across all geographical regions, whereas the use of PAs was statistically more likely in the Northeast and Midwest regions (P < 0.01). Freestanding children's hospitals were more likely to use NPs than children's hospital within general hospitals (P < 0.01). Procedures such as fluorescein staining of the cornea were performed by all NPs, whereas only 65% of NPs performed repair of a finger-tip amputation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of NPs in the PED is common. Nurse practitioners in the PED perform a number of different procedures. Future studies analyzing practice patterns and effectiveness of the NP role in the PED are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".