Review Article
A Study of Advanced Practice Provider Staffing Models and Professional Development Opportunities at National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions
Annie Austin,(1) Kellyann Jeffries,(2) Diana Krause,(3) Jessica Sugalski,(3) Karen Sharrah,(4) Anne Gross,(5) Danielle Bowers,(5) Daniel Mulkerin,(6) Nancy Brandt,(6) Aaron Begue,(7) Rose Bell,(8) Cheryl Raczyk,(8) Todd Pickard,(9) David Johnson,(10) Vanna Dest,(11) Rory Randall,(12) Gabrielle Zecha,(13) and Kate Kennedy,(1)
From (1)Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (2)Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center (3)NCCN (4)City of Hope National Medical Center (5)Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (6)University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center (7)Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (8)Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (9)University of Texas MD Anderson (10)Moffitt Cancer Center (11)Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital (12)University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center (13)SCCA
Authors’ disclosures of conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.
Correspondence to: Diana Krause, MHA, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), 3025 Chemical Road, Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462. E-mail: krause@nccn.org
J Adv Pract Oncol 2021;12(7):717–724 |
https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2021.12.7.5 |
© 2021 Harborside™
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Best Practices Committee created an Advanced Practice Provider (APP) Workgroup to develop recommendations to support APP roles at NCCN Member Institutions. Methods: The Workgroup conducted three surveys to understand APP program structure, staffing models, and professional development opportunities at NCCN Member Institutions. Results: The total number of new and follow-up visits a 1.0 APP full-time equivalent conducts per week in shared and independent visits ranged from 11 to 97, with an average of 40 visits per week (n = 39). The type of visits APPs conduct include follow-up shared (47.2%), follow-up independent (46%), new shared (6.5%), and new independent visits (0.5%). Seventy-two percent of respondents utilize a mixed model visit type, with 15% utilizing only independent visits and 13% utilizing only shared visits (n = 39). Of the 95% of centers with APP leads, 100% indicated that leads carry administrative and clinical responsibilities (n = 20); however, results varied with respect to how this time is allocated. Professional development opportunities offered included posters, papers, and presentations (84%), leadership development (57%), research opportunities (52%), writing book chapters (19%), and other professional development activities (12%; n = 422). Twenty percent of APPs indicated that protected time to engage in development opportunities should be offered. Conclusion: As evidenced by the variability of the survey results, the field would benefit from developing standards for APPs. There is a lack of information regarding leadership structures to help support APPs, and additional research is needed. Additionally, centers should continuously assess the career-long opportunities needed to maximize the value of oncology APPs.
For access to the full length article, please
sign in.
