{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019823788546255508, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0022026431718061676, 'mean_word_length': 5.06, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Recent evidence of nurse practitioner outcomes in a variety of care settings.

When nurse practitioners (NPs) work to expand their scope of practice through state legislatures, the opposing lobbying groups are often physician-led organizations. The main argument against NP independence and limited scope of practice is that NP care is inherently inferior to that of physicians. However, more than three decades of research demonstrates quality and cost outcomes to be equal to or better than that of physicians. This article reviews a wide range of evidence documenting NP competency, satisfaction, and safety, as well as the challenges and consequences when limiting NP scope of practice. The evidence is clear and has not changed in over 30 years, NPs provide access to and effective primary care in a variety of settings, equal in quality outcomes and safety, and cost-effective compared with physicians.