PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8008263

Developing a collaborative practice agreement for the primary care setting.

Abstract

One of the goals of joint or collaborative practice is to improve health care services. With quality assurance and quality improvement being integral parts of modern-day health care, nurse practitioners need a mechanism to define the standards by which they practice. Collaborative practice agreements document the nurse practitioner's scope of practice and educate physicians, administrators, managers, and legal counsel. The outline presented in this article guides primary care practitioners through the document construction and approval process.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M B Sebas. 1994. Developing a collaborative practice agreement for the primary care setting.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006205-199403000-00012

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Identification of high-risk residents.

BACKGROUND: Identification of high-risk residents allows remediation and support for administrative action when necessary. This study characterizes differences in documentation of marginally performing residents in a general surgery residency. METHODS: High-risk residents were identified by the former program director. Twenty-four of one hundred fifteen residents over a 10-year period had one to four problematic areas: cognitive, synthetic, family/health, and interpersonal skills. Outcomes included finished (18), voluntary withdrawal (1), and involuntary withdrawal (5). A case-control study matching controls to cases by date of entry into the training program was used. Records were reviewed for demographics, preentry qualifications, American Board of Surgery In-Training Exam (ABSITE) scores, letters of complaint or praise, events of counseling, and monthly ratings. The records of 48 residents were reviewed. Ward evaluations were on eight categories with a 5-point Leikert scale (3-unacceptable to 7-outstanding). The evaluation score assigns points only to low ratings. High scores represent progressively poorer performance. A Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to compare the cases and controls for continuous variables. The McNemar test was used in comparisons of categorical data with binary outcomes. Exact P values are reported. RESULTS: Objective data were similar for both groups. Study residents tended to score higher on monthly evaluations at Year 2 and by Year 3 this achieved significance (0.026). Study residents were more likely to have negative faculty letters (0.016) and events of counseling by a faculty member (0.017) and the program director (0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Identification of residents at risk should begin as early as possible during training. A combination of faculty evaluations and evidence of letters of counseling can detect high-risk residents. Programs may use such indicators to support decisions regarding remedial work or administrative action.

Documentation↗