ArticleCritical care explorations2026
Critical Care Advanced Practice Providers: Practice and Workforce.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceThis study provides nationally representative data on critical care advanced practice provider (APP) workforce structure and practice, addressing gaps in onboarding, productivity assessment, and administrative roles that influence workforce sustainability.
objectivesTo analyze the composition of the clinical practice and workforce demographics of critical care medicine APPs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsWe utilized a cross-sectional survey, which was distributed via email through the Society of Critical Care Medicine email list, targeting critical care APPs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A total of 518 critical care APPs participated in the survey, comprising 63.2% advanced practice registered nurses, 28.8% physician assistants, and 8% clinical nurse specialists. The majority of the sample APPs worked 12-hour shifts covering days, nights, and weekends, with over 50% managing 6-10 patients per day shift. Common billing practices included critical care time (60.6%) and bedside invasive procedures (64.3%). Formal onboarding was reported by 68.6% of respondents, with academic hospitals more likely to offer such programs than community hospitals (72.3% vs. 27.7%; p < 0.001). Administrative APP roles were more prevalent in academic centers (p < 0.001) and were associated with greater access to professional development opportunities (p < 0.001). A significant proportion of respondents (41.5%) reported that their productivity was not formally measured. Notably, 22% of respondents reported an intent to leave the profession, particularly those lacking leadership or professional growth opportunities (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study captures practice trends and demographics of the critical care APP workforce. Day-to-day tasks among all respondents were globally clinically focused, but there were disparities in workload distribution, onboarding, productivity measurement, and administrative roles across types of centers. Additionally, there was significant association between limited professional growth opportunities and intent to leave critical care. These findings underscore the need for healthcare systems to invest in structured support, leadership development, and professional growth to enhance APP retention, engagement, and productivity. Further research is needed to identify efficient workload and staffing models.
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.