Provider to Patient Ratios for Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants in Critical Care Units
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are being increasingly integrated into intensive care unit and hospital-based care teams, yet limited information is available on provider to patient ratios. OBJECTIVE: To determine current provider to patient ratios for nurse practitioners and physician assistants working in intensive and acute care units and to assess factors that affect the ratios. METHODS: A descriptive study design was used with a Web-based survey of members of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. RESULTS: Responses were received from 222 nurse practitioners and 211 physician assistants from all but 8 of the 50 United States and from Canada. Mean provider to patient ratios in intensive care were 1 to 5 (range, 1 to 3 - 1 to 8). In pediatric intensive care, the mean ratio of nurse practitioners to patients was 1 to 4 (range, 1 to 3 - 1 to 8). Factors that affected nurse practitioner and physician assistant provider to patient ratios included patients' severity of illness, number of patients in the unit, number of providers in the unit, patient diagnosis, number of physicians in the unit, time of day, and number of fellows and medical residents on service. CONCLUSIONS: Additional information on factors influencing provider to patient ratios and specific components of the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants will be important to ensure the best utilization of these providers to enable optimal patient care outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it