Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Attitudes of anesthetists towards an anesthesia-led nurse practitioner model for low-risk colonoscopy procedures: a cross-sectional survey.|
|Authors:||Weinberg, Laurence;Grover, H;Cowie, Dean A;Langley, E;Heland, Melodie J;Story, D A|
|Affiliation:||Department of Anaesthesia, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia|
Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Anesthesia Perioperative and Pain Medicine Unit, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Centre for Integrated Critical Care, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|Citation:||Human resources for health 2020; 18(1): 20|
|Abstract:||The mounting pressure on the Australian healthcare system is driving a continual exploration of areas to improve patient care and access and to maximize utilization of our workforce. We hypothesized that there would be support by anesthetists employed at our hospital for the design, development, and potential implementation of an anesthesia-led nurse practitioner (NP) model for low-risk colonoscopy patients. We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed methods study to ascertain the attitudes and acceptability of anesthetists towards a proposed anesthesia-led NP model for low-risk colonoscopy patients. An online survey using commercial software and theoretical questions pertaining to participants' attitudes towards an anesthesia-led NP model was e-mailed to consultant anesthetists. Participants were also invited to participate in a voluntary 20-min face-to-face interview. A total of 60 survey responses were received from a pool of 100 anesthetists (response rate = 60%, accounting for 8.04% margin of error). Despite the theoretical benefits of improved patient access to colonoscopy services, most anesthetists were not willing to participate in the supervision and training of NPs. The predominant themes underlying their lack of support for the program were a perception that patient safety would be compromised compared to the current model of anesthesia-led care, the model does not meet the Australian and New Zealand College of Anesthetists guidelines for procedural sedation and analgesia, and the program may be a public liability prone to litigation in the event of an adverse outcome. Concerns about consumer acceptance and cost-effectiveness were also raised. Finally, participants thought the model should be pilot tested to better understand consumer attitudes, logistical feasibility, patient and proceduralist attitudes, clinical governance, and, importantly, patient safety. Most anesthetists working in a single-center university hospital did not support an anesthesia-led NP model for low-risk colonoscopy patients. Patient safety, violations of the current Australian and New Zealand College of Anesthetists guidelines on procedural sedation, and logistical feasibility were significant barriers to the acceptance of the model. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, 12619001036101.|
|Appears in Collections:||Journal articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.