BACKGROUND: How advanced practice providers (APPs) are deployed in adult US intensive care units (ICUs) is understudied. Further, whether state-level restrictions on practice affect the availability of these providers is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To describe staffing patterns of ICU APPs (nurse practitioners, physician assistants) in the context of physicians-in-training (interns, residents, fellows) and to explore the association between state-level APP practice restrictions and employment. METHODS: Data from a national survey of pre-COVID-19 (steady-state) ICU staffing linked to the 2020 American Hospital Association survey were used to examine staffing patterns (via descriptive statistics) and to explore the association of state-level practice restrictions with the presence of APPs in ICUs (via multivariable regression). RESULTS: The cohort included 588 adult ICUs, of which 336 (57.1%) reported both APPs and physicians-in-training, 124 (21.1%) APPs only, 73 (12.4%) physicians-in-training only, and 55 (9.4%) neither. Units with both provider types were more commonly surgical ICUs (17.6% vs ≤9.6%; P < .001), whereas those with neither were 98.2% mixed units. Those units with neither were smaller and more often in smaller, nonteaching, for-profit hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas. Two hundred twenty-five ICUs (38.3%) were in states allowing full APP practice scope. After adjustment, the odds of employing APPs were nonsignificantly higher in ICUs in full-practice states. CONCLUSIONS: Both APPs and physicians-in-training are commonly deployed in US adult ICUs, often together. Laws limiting practice scope may impede deployment of these providers in ICUs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costa et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: