Analysis of Full Practice Authority Restrictions on Nurse Practitioners
Identify and review these two scholarly articles that focus on the change strategies implemented by healthcare organizations:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5995533/pdf/jadp-08-074.pdf
http://ojin.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAPeriodicals/OJIN/TableofContents/Vol-19-2014/No2-May-2014/Barriers-to-NP-Practice.html
Develop a 3- to 4-page paper, written to your organization’s leadership team, addressing full practice authority restrictions on Nurse Practitioners and how it is impacting your work setting. Be sure to address the following:
·.
· Provide a brief summary of the two articles you reviewed from outside resources on this national healthcare issue. Explain how this healthcare issue is being addressed in other organizations.
· Summarize the strategies used to address the organizational impact of full practice authority restrictions on nurse practitioners presented in the scholarly resources you selected. Explain how they may impact your organization both positively and negatively. Be specific and provide examples.
Statistics should be based on Texas Nurse Practitioner Restrictions
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
Full practice authority restrictions on Nurse Practitioners (NPs) have been a topic of concern within healthcare organizations. This paper aims to address the impact of these restrictions on a specific work setting, utilizing organizational data and insights from scholarly articles. Additionally, strategies used by other organizations to address this issue will be explored, along with their potential positive and negative effects.
1. Description of full practice authority restrictions and their impact on healthcare organizations:
Full practice authority restrictions refer to regulations that limit the scope of practice for NPs, requiring them to work under the supervision or collaboration of physicians. Restricted practice restrictions refer to requirements such as mandatory collaborative agreements between NPs and physicians, while reduced practice restrictions impose limitations on NPs’ ability to prescribe certain medications or perform specific procedures.
These restrictions have a significant impact on healthcare organizations. NPs play a crucial role in addressing primary care shortages, improving access to care, and enhancing patient outcomes. However, full practice authority restrictions hinder NPs’ ability to practice to the full extent of their education and training, creating barriers to delivering optimal patient care. These restrictions often result in delays in patient care, increased healthcare costs, and limited access to healthcare services, particularly in underserved areas.
Organizational data should be utilized to quantify the impact of these restrictions within the specific work setting. This data might include the number of patients seen by NPs, the duration of visits, patient satisfaction scores, and wait times for appointments.
2. Summary of the two articles:
The first article, “Analyzing State-By-State NP Practice Restriction: Restriction, Reduction, and Full Practice Authority,” provides an overview of NP practice restrictions across the United States. It analyzes the impact of these restrictions on access to care, cost, and patient outcomes. The article emphasizes the need for expanding NPs’ practice authority to address healthcare workforce shortages effectively.
The second article, “Barriers to NP Practice: Reducing Restrictions to Improve Healthcare Delivery,” explores the barriers faced by NPs in achieving full practice authority. It outlines the potential benefits of removing these barriers, such as increased patient access to care, improved healthcare outcomes, and reduced healthcare costs. The article suggests strategies for addressing these barriers, including advocacy efforts, legislative changes, and collaborative initiatives between healthcare organizations.
3. Strategies to address full practice authority restrictions and their impact on the organization:
The scholarly resources selected suggest several strategies to address the impact of full practice authority restrictions on NPs within healthcare organizations. These strategies include advocacy for legislative changes to remove practice restrictions, promoting interprofessional collaboration, and emphasizing the value of NPs in healthcare delivery.
Implementing these strategies positively impacts organizations by:
– Increasing patient access to care: With full practice authority, NPs can independently manage a broader range of healthcare services, reducing wait times for appointments and improving access to care, especially in underserved areas.
– Enhancing healthcare outcomes: NPs are highly trained professionals capable of providing high-quality care. By removing practice restrictions, organizations can leverage the full extent of their NP workforce, leading to improved healthcare outcomes.
– Reducing healthcare costs: NPs can provide cost-effective care, especially for primary care services. By granting full practice authority, organizations can optimize healthcare delivery and potentially lower costs.
However, it is important to consider potential challenges or negative impacts that may arise. Some physicians and professional organizations might have concerns about patient safety and quality of care when NPs have full practice authority. Addressing these concerns through collaborative initiatives, continuing education opportunities, and clear guidelines can help mitigate any negative impact.
In conclusion, full practice authority restrictions on NPs significantly impact healthcare organizations. By utilizing organizational data, understanding the insights from scholarly articles, and implementing appropriate strategies, organizations can address these restrictions and positively impact patient access to care, healthcare outcomes, and healthcare costs.
