Observational studyThe western journal of emergency medicine2025
Emergency Physician Assessment of Productivity and Supervision Practices.
Observational study in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite a lack of data guiding safe standards for physician productivity and supervision of non-physician practitioners (NPP), legislation dictating supervision ratios for emergency physicians (EP) has been enacted in Florida and elsewhere across the country. To inform future legislation, we aim to identify current productivity and supervision practices among practicing EPs as well as those physicians' safety assessments of their current practices.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional observational study regarding EPs' perspectives on safe staffing and supervision models. A survey, consisting of 14 questions examining different variables affecting supervision and productivity, was used to determine physicians' opinions on the safety of productivity and supervision models across a range of annual volumes, employers, and years of experience. We coded safety assessments as binary (yes/no) and measured productivity by patients treated per hour. Ratios of physician to supervisee (either resident physician or or NPP) were given as number of supervisees: EP.
resultsThe survey response rate was 4.8% (196/4,004). On average, most EPs treated 2.6 patients per hour, regardless of years of experience, employment model, or supervision model. More than 80% of EPs felt that their current patients-per- hour practice was safe. Direct supervision represented 59% of total visits and the majority in all employment models except for community contract-management groups (CMG). A minimum of 80% of physicians felt that their current supervision practices were safe across employment models, with the notable exception of community CMGs. Most felt that a safe ratio for direct supervision of NPPs was 1:1. Over 30% reported there was no safe staffing ratio for indirect supervision.
conclusionWith the exception of those employed by community contract-management groups, EPs felt that their current productivity and supervision practices were safe; however, average productivity and supervision ratios are much lower than prior estimates and in current legislation governing emergency department practice. Standards of care for both productivity and supervision that take into account current practices and safety assessments should be established and considered when future policies and legislation are developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.