0

The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health report compiled by the  Committee on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future of Nursing at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) was released in October 2010.  The report has generated lively discussions from multiple disciplines about scope of practice, educational preparation and training, and leadership roles of nurses at all levels.  Eight recommendations are included in the report:

 

1.     Remove scope-of-practice barriers.

2.     Expand opportunities for nurses to lead and diffuse collabora¬tive improvement efforts.

3.     Implement nurse residency programs.

4.     Increase the proportion of nurses with a baccalaureate degree to 80 percent by 2020.

5.     Double the number of nurses with a doctorate by 2020.

6.     Ensure that nurses engage in lifelong learning.

7.     Prepare and enable nurses to lead change to advance health.

8.     Build an infrastructure for the collection and analysis of inter¬professional health care workforce data. (http://iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2010/The-Future-of-Nursing/Future%20of%20Nursing%202010%20Recommendations.pdf)

 

I will comment on Number 5 which addresses doubling the number of nurses with a doctorate by 2020 – the research PhD and the clinical Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP).  Questions that are commonly asked about DNP preparation include: (1) Why should there be a shift to doctoral preparation for advanced practice nurses (APNs)? (2) Will master’s prepared nurses no longer be qualified to continue to provide services as APNs? (3) If the goal is to address the primary care shortage, how does extending training achieve that? (4) Will increasing the debt load of potential providers but not the income generate the same specialization migration that has plagued physicians?  Quick responses are: (1) The time has come; (2) No, this change will not disenfranchise currently licensed and certified APNs; (3) APNs will have a value-added skill set to help improve quality of care and health outcomes; (4) Specialization will not become the norm.

 

The DNP degree is designed to prepare advanced practice nurses with increased value-added skills in leadership, systems thinking, evidence-based practice, health care policy, health information technology, and population health.  Current master’s curricula are already overloaded with trying to provide all of these essential inputs to creating the optimal nursing workforce.  Adding more credits to include mandatory content in basic curricula is not realistic.  Graduates are expected to demonstrate competencies in broad areas reflecting the increasing complexity of care delivery.  Many master’s programs are beyond 60 credits now; on average, students take 2 years full-time and 3-5 years part time to earn a master’s degree.  The DNP is 2 years post-masters and 3 years post baccalaureate for full-time study.  The trade off of a few more months in school for a more highly prepared APN should not even be a point for discussion.  APNs will still be prepared at the master’s level unless the DNP becomes entry level to practice by 2015, as recommended by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN).

 

Many nurses have not entered doctoral studies because they were not interested in pursuing research careers; the DNP degree provides an option for those who want to earn a final degree in nursing.  The investment of time and money does pose challenges for nurses who are working full-time and have multiple other life responsibilities.  Personal motivation is a major driving force for APNs who do enroll in DNP programs.  DNP programs have been attractive to nurses from diverse backgrounds – primary care and specialty care, rural and urban settings, and the experienced and the novice.  A number of APNs already work in specialty practices and emerging changes in APN educational preparation through the Consensus agreement (http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Education/pdf/APRNReport.pdf) creates more standardized curricula, education and training, for all APNs.  The number of APN graduates who might opt for specialties instead of primary care probably will not increase in most areas of practice.  Opportunities for clinical faculty positions in academic institutions secondary to the nursing faculty shortage is another driving force encouraging enrollments in DNP programs.  As the DNP role becomes more defined, the value of their added skills will be recognized, and compensation will follow accordingly.

 

The IOM report offers strategies for achieving greater numbers of nurses with doctoral degrees.  Two main actions required from schools of nursing are to review current curricula and revise to make progression from basic preparation to more advanced degrees a more seamless process and to obtain increased levels of financial assistance from private and government sources.  Without addressing these two areas, especially in tough economic times, preparing nurses at any level becomes increasingly difficult.

 

Downloadable free copy of full report: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/The-Future-of-Nursing-Leading-Change-Advancing-Health.aspx.

Burman et al. (2005): http://ajcc.aacnjournals.org/content/14/6/463.full.pdf+html

Newland (2011): http://journals.lww.com/tnpj/Fulltext/2011/04000/The_Doctor_of_Nursing_Practice__What_are_your.1.aspx

Miller (2008): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2605113/

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2009): http://www.aacn.nche.edu/DNP/DNPFAQ.htm

Clinton & Sperhac (2009): http://www.con.ohio-state.edu/attachments/Doctoral_programs/DNP_Issues_and_Consequences_article.pdf

Barry (2009): http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=856423

0

In its 2001 seminal report “Crossing the Quality Chasm:  A New Health System for the 21rst Century”, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) described the current state of health care delivery.  The report described a health care system that was fragmented, poorly designed and most importantly not delivering quality care. It also outlined a plan with very specific performance objectives designed to close the quality gap and support the patient-provider relationship. These objectives called for a radical redesign of the health system to achieve six aims—safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable care.  A new phase in health care improvement is now emerging: one that focuses on value. Value considers providing safe, effective, and efficient care at the right cost. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) has developed a model for optimizing health, care experience, and costs for populations -- The Triple Aim. This is a structure in which we know and care about:

  1. Patient and Family experience,
  2. The quality of care delivered, and
  3. How our efforts impact the cost of care.

I would add from my own perspective that we care about our community and providing care for all.

My career started working as a nurse in a hospital system before I moved to the ambulatory care setting. As a nurse there are moments in my career that haunt me. These tragic events had catastrophic impact on patients and families. It was not the failure of caring and competent staff which led to these haunting memories--it was the lack of systems and process to support evidence based care. These experiences drive my passion for a healthier health care delivery system.

In my current position with Colorado Beacon Consortium as Director, Community Collaboratives and Practice Transformation, I have the pleasure of helping primary care practices in transformation and learning from their amazing efforts. In my 15 years working with primary care practices, I have never met a staff member clinical or non-clinical who came to work hoping not to deliver the best possible care. Practices need support for these transformational changes.  Having a “small test of change” fail has meaning for clinical staff because of our educational experience. Failure in the clinical training means that a patient is harmed. Clinical staff need to understand that failures in the quality improvement process mean that the team will not be wasting their time on processes that do not bring value to their patients or to the practice.

 

In an era of incentive programs such as Meaningful Use and system designs such as Accountable Care Organizations, now more than ever strong Primary Care delivery systems is necessary for creating a healthier health care system. Primary Care transformation is integral is achieving the goals articulated in Crossing the Quality Chasm.

 

Now more than ever Primary Care needs support to transform systems and processes to make their best better. Redesign efforts started with the development of the Chronic Care Model by Dr. Edward Wagner and the MacColl Institute. The Chronic Care Model serves as a structure to organize care delivery for patients with chronic disease by maximizing proactive team based care, implementing processes which deliver evidence based care, utilizing health information technology (HIT) and delivering proactive care. Through several national organizations such as Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Health Disparities Collaboratives, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), the MacColl Institute and more recent initiatives such as National Demonstration Project and Improving Performance in Practice (IPIP) best practices in primary care transformation have been developed.

The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) has been recognized as a catalyst to support Primary Care transformation that delivers on the expectations described in Crossing the Quality Chasm. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) describes PCMH as:

  • Patient-Centered
  • Comprehensive  & Coordinated care
  • Superb access to care
  • A systems-based approach to quality and safety

These attributes must be supported by a foundation of Health Information Technology and rich data which provides knowledge to drive outcomes.  The other structural change must come in the form of a payment structure that supports primary care and the attributes that will drive the value primary care delivery will bring to healthcare.

A comprehensive program to recognize practices who implement the attributes of PCMH has been developed by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Physician Practice Connections- Patient-Centered Medical Home (PPC-PCMH). NCQA has recently updated the recognition program.

The 2011 program includes the core components of primary care:

  • PCMH 1: Enhance Access and Continuity
  • PCMH 2: Identify and Manage Patient Populations
  • PCMH 3: Plan and Manage Care
  • PCMH 4: Provide Self-Care and Community Support
  • PCMH 5: Track and Coordinate Care
  • PCMH 6: Measure and Improve Performance

The transformation process for primary care is more than tinkering around the edges. This process of change requires a foundation of culture and leadership that is supportive of the efforts within the practice. This can be either through the leadership structure of a broader organization or within a small independent primary care practice. The Primary Care Practice team members are being asked to reconsider the hierarchical nature of medicine for a team based approach to patient-centered care. All members of the team to participate in the redesign process and in evidence based care delivery. Practices establish structures to make “small tests of change” that are reviewed to understand if the impact is positive in delivering safe, effective, evidence based care.  Implementing self-management support with primary care builds on the most intimate of relationships between patient & families and the care team. Self-management techniques utilized in the care setting build on patient activation and engagement in their care. Technology is a tool to be maximized and utilized meaningfully.

 

Clearly, we understand the role of Primary Care in supporting our current sick health care system to become healthier. This transformation takes time and requires support. As we establish principles, goals, care models and incentive programs to create a healthy health care system, it is important not to lose sight of the need to also transform the current payment model with is perfectly designed to assure that our fragmented, ineffective, dysfunctional and harmful health care system continues.

 

Crossing the Quality Chasm

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2001/Crossing-the-Quality-Chasm-A-New-Health-System-for-the-21st-Century.aspx

Institute for Healthcare Improvement

http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Programs/StrategicInitiatives/IHITripleAim.htm

 

Improving Chronic Illness Care

http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/

HRSA Healthcare Communities

http://www.healthcarecommunities.org/

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

http://www.pcmh.ahrq.gov/portal/server.pt/community/pcmh__home/1483/what_is_pcmh_

National Committee for Quality Assurance

http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/631/default.aspx

Office of the National Coordinator for HIT (ONC)

http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt/community/healthit_hhs_gov__home/1204

Colorado Beacon Consortium

http://www.coloradobeaconconsortium.org/

Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)

https://www.cms.gov/EHRIncentivePrograms/30_Meaningful_Use.asp

Partnership with Patients

http://www.healthcare.gov/center/programs/partnership/index.html