The headlines don’t always match the data: An example of egregious methodology in NP literature

In several previous podcasts, you have heard us refer to research studies that claim to show that nurse practitioner care is just as good or better than that provided by physicians. We’ve shown that in many of these cases, the study authors are using flawed methodology or failing to disclose important information, like nurse practitioners working under physician supervision.

Today we invite you to attend Patients at Risk’s first “Journal Club” session as we dissect a study that claims to show that having more nurse practitioners working in hospitals improves patient care, and the methodology used by the authors is just about one of the most egregious examples we have ever seen. To help explain this study, we are joined by two physician experts, Dr. Dylan Golomb and Dr. Marsha Haley.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The study authors claim that “having more NPs in hospitals has favorable effects…and adds value to labor resources” – but the methodology they use involves asking nurses to ESTIMATE the number of NPs that work in their hospitals – without any validation that this estimate is accurate.

Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Brom HM, Todd BA, Barnes H, Cimiotti JP, Cunningham RS, McHugh MD. Value of Nurse Practitioner Inpatient Hospital Staffing. Med Care. 2021 Oct 1;59(10):857-863. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001628. PMID: 34432769; PMCID: PMC8446318.

GET THE BOOK:  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M9YJQR3/