Key result
Advanced clinical practitioners completed significantly more admission VTE risk assessments than doctors (98% vs 48%; OR for doctors 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95, P=0.03).
Why the study?
Working time restrictions and a growing, older, sicker population prompted the introduction of extended surgical teams with advanced clinical practitioners, but their impact on quality standards needed evaluation.
Does the use of advanced clinical practitioners as part of the extended surgical team improve the completion of VTE and AKI risk assessments in surgical patients?
Observational (n=1,399)
No
Does the use of advanced clinical practitioners as part of the extended surgical team improve the completion of VTE and AKI risk assessments in surgical patients?
Odds Ratio: 0.57 (95% CI 0.35–0.95)
Absolute Event Rate: 98% vs 48%
p-value: p=0.03
The inclusion of advanced clinical practitioners in extended surgical teams significantly improves the timely completion of VTE and AKI risk assessments compared to doctors alone.
ACPs were associated with higher VTE and AKI risk assessment completion rates; this Level 3 evidence leaves open whether EST integration improves surgical quality standards.
Background: The introduction of working time restrictions coupled with a growing, ageing and sicker population has prompted wider reforms for the global workforce. In the UK, this initiated the implementation of extended surgical teams (ESTs) consisting of surgeons and advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs). Aim: This single-centred quantitative retrospective longitudinal study examined the impact of having ACPs as part of the ESTs on quality standards. Method: Secondary data were extracted from patient records for time points before and after the introduction of the EST. A total of 1399 patients were analysed for the outcome variables ‘completion of venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment’ and ‘completion of acute kidney injury (AKI) risk assessment’. Findings: There was a statistically significant reduction in the number of VTE risk assessments completed within 4 hours by doctors when compared with ACPs (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.95; P=0.03), and AKI risk assessments completed within 4 hours by doctors when compared with ACPs (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; P=0.02). ACPs completed 98% of admission VTE risk assessments compared with 48% of doctors. Conclusions: ACPs completed more VTE and AKI risk assessments and contributed to the national VTE Commissioning for Quality and Innovation goal. Implications for practice: ACPs improve quality standards, patient care and efficiency of pathways. General surgical departments should consider enlisting ACPs as part of the extended surgical team.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smith et al. (2025) reported an observational. Advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) vs. Doctors was evaluated on Completion of venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment within 4 hours (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.95, p=0.03). Advanced clinical practitioners completed significantly more admission VTE risk assessments than doctors (98% vs 48%; OR for doctors 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95, P=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: