***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Objective : To compare nurse practitioner/physician management of hospital care , multidisciplinary team-based planning , expedited discharge , and assessment after discharge to usual management . Background : In the context of managed care , the goal of academic medical centers is to provide quality care at the lowest cost and minimize length of stay ( LOS ) while not compromising quality . Methods : Comparative , 2-group , quasiexperimental design was used ; 1,207 general medicine patients ( n = 581 in the experimental group and n = 626 in the control group ) were enrolled . The control unit provided usual care . The care management in the experimental unit had 3 different components : an advanced practice nurse who followed the patients during hospitalization and 30 days after discharge , a hospitalist medical director and another hospitalist , and daily multidisciplinary rounds .  LOS , hospital costs , mortality , and readmission 4 months after discharge were measured . Results : Average LOS was significantly lower for patients in the experimental group than the control group ( 5 vs. 6 days , P < .0001 ) . The " backfill profit " to the hospital was US$ 1591 per patient in the experimental group ( SE , US$ 639 ) . There were no significant group differences in mortality or readmissions . Conclusions : Collaborative physician/nurse practitioner multidisciplinary care management of hospitalized medical patients reduced LOS and improved hospital profit without altering readmissions or mortality Objective . Hospitals adapt to changing market conditions by exploring new care models that allow them to maintain high quality while containing costs . The authors examined the net cost savings associated with care management by teams of physicians and nurse practitioners , along with daily multidisciplinary rounds and postdischarge patient follow-up . Methods . One thous and two hundred and seven general medicine in patients in an academic medical center were r and omized to the intervention versus usual care .  Intervention costs were compared to the difference in nonintervention costs , estimated by comparing changes between preadmission and postadmission in regression-adjusted costs for intervention versus usual care patients . Intervention costs were calculated by assigning hourly costs to the time spent by different providers on the intervention . Patient costs during the index hospital stay were estimated from administrative records and during the 4-month follow-up by weighting selfreported utilization by unit costs . Results . Intervention costs were $ 1187 per patient and associated with a significant $ 3331 reduction in nonintervention costs . About $ 1947 of the savings were realized during the initial hospital stay , with the remainder attributable to reductions in postdischarge service use . After adjustment for possible attrition bias , a reasonable estimate of the cost offset was $ 2165 , for a net cost savings of $ 978 per patient . Because health outcomes were comparable for the 2 groups , the intervention was cost-effective . Conclusions . Wider adoption of multidisciplinary interventions in similar setting s might be considered . The savings previously reported with hospitalist models may also be achievable with other models that focus on efficient inpatient care and appropriate postdischarge care 
    Output:
    
Nurse practitioners and medical practitioners have differing views on the essentials of collaboration and on supervision and autonomous nurse practitioner practice .
Medical practitioners who have a working experience with NPs express more positive attitudes towards collaboration .
Both professional groups report concerns and negative experiences with collaborative practice but also value certain advantages of collaboration .
Conclusions The review shows that working in collaboration is a slow progression .
Exposure to working together helps to overcome professional hurdles , dispel concerns and provide clarity around roles and the meaning of collaboration of NPs and MPs .