Back

Perceptions and Outcomes of a Hospital Medicine (HM) Advanced Practice Provider (APP)-Led Care Model: A Qualitative Study

DeTroye, A. T.; Tysinger, E.; Lippert, J.; Conner, K. T.; Gillette, C.

2026-02-19 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.02.18.26346538 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundA Hospital Medicine Advanced Practice Provider (HMAPP)-led care model developed in response to the high acuity and increased patient volumes associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. Although anecdotally perceived as a successful model, questions remained if there was adequate pre-planning and formal implementation strategy for stakeholder buy-in. ObjectiveTo elicit HM physicians and APPs perceptions of the HMAPP-led care model implementation and consider necessary steps for optimal future APP care model development and operation. Design, Setting and ParticipantsThis qualitative study used 10 (5 physicians and 5 APPs involved in the care model pre- and post-implementation) individual semi-structured, virtual interviews based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Deductive and inductive rapid analysis was utilized to analyze the data. ResultsTwo themes emerged as strengths: 1) Experienced APPs delivered the care model, 2) Acceptance of the care model evolved over time. Four themes suggested opportunities for future development: 1) Guidelines should expand from patient distribution to include minimal collaboration and escalation expectations, 2) Culture change was a barrier to model implementation and acceptance, 3) Intentional collaboration between APPs and Physicians is necessary, 4) Investment in standardized onboarding enhances buy-in of the care model. ConclusionThe impact of an APP care model can be elevated if implemented with key principles and strategies. This is critical in an evolving health care landscape where all providers need to collaborate and practice with their full expertise to maximize safe, efficient and quality patient care.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.6%
2
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
3
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.2%
5
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.4%
6
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
7
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
8
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
9
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
11
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
12
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
13
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
14
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
16
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
17
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
18
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
19
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
20
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
22
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
BMC Medical Education
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
25
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
26
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
27
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
28
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%