Integrating Advanced Practice Providers in Kidney Stone Prevention: Patterns, Barriers, and Opportunities - Beyond the Abstract
Advanced practice provider—nurse practitioner and physician assistant/associate (APP)—integration in kidney stone prevention (KSP) is one of the clearest available tools to sustain access to stone prevention care without simply adding more physician hours that do not exist. APPs have already become a fixture in urologic practice, according to the recent AUA Census, and most urologists now work alongside at least one. Nonetheless, there is currently a lack of comprehensive data that formally describes the roles of APPs in KSP clinics. We saw this as a meaningful gap. KSP is guideline-driven and built around ongoing outpatient follow-up. That structure makes it a natural fit for APP-delivered care—and creates space for urologists to focus on what requires their surgical expertise.
The core argument for APP integration in KSP is straightforward: there is more work than urologists can do alone, and much of that work—metabolic monitoring, dietary counseling, medication titration, longitudinal follow-up—does not require a surgeon. It requires someone knowledgeable, consistent, and engaged. APPs can fill that role, and this study provides the first look at how that plays out in practice. We surveyed Endourological Society members globally to characterize APP utilization in KSP clinics, assess physician satisfaction with APP-delivered care, understand current oversight structures, and identify barriers to broader adoption.
In brief, we found that APP integration in KSP is far more common in U.S. practices than internationally—a gap that reflects not just workforce culture, but structural realities. Where formal recognition of APP roles does not exist, adoption is predictably low. Within the U.S., APP use in KSP is heavily concentrated in academic settings—likely because those practices have the infrastructure to support it, such as onboarding processes, billing support, and supervisory frameworks. Community and private practices may have the need but lack the scaffolding. Physician satisfaction with APP-delivered care was high across core KSP domains and remained so even in practices without formal oversight. The exception was imaging review, where satisfaction was notably lower—likely reflecting the surgical judgment required for stone burden assessment and procedural planning, which falls outside most current APP training curricula. These findings point to an opportunity for societies to act and to define the scope of practice for complementary APP integration for improved urologic care.
For urologists thinking about how to structure or grow a KSP practice, the data here offer a practical template. Assign APPs to the longitudinal, protocol-driven work—metabolic monitoring, dietary counseling, medication management, and follow-up visits. Keep urologist involvement focused on new consultations, complex cases, imaging decisions with surgical implications, and anything requiring procedural expertise. That division of labor is where the satisfaction data are strongest, and it is the model most likely to scale.
The barriers to APP adoption—availability, organizational inertia, cost concerns—are real but surmountable. Medicare reimburses APPs at 85% of the physician rate, malpractice exposure attributable to APPs is minimal, and the evidence from other specialties consistently shows that well-integrated APP models reduce wait times and improve throughput. The evidence supports framing APP hiring as a strategic investment in practice capacity, not an administrative overhead.
The next steps are fairly clear. Prospective evaluation of patient-level outcomes under APP-led KSP care remains a priority, including stone recurrence, metabolic normalization, and adherence to dietary and pharmacologic recommendations. The question of imaging review also warrants dedicated attention, specifically whether targeted training modules could build competency in surveillance imaging and where the boundary between APP-appropriate and surgeon-required imaging decisions should sit. Most urgently, the field needs formalized competency standards for APPs in urology. Most currently develop expertise through on-the-job mentorship, which is inconsistent and difficult to verify. Finally, the international disparity in APP utilization represents a clear call to action for global urology societies, as regionally adapted guidance could meaningfully expand access where the provider shortage is most acute.
In closing, APP integration in KSP is not just a workforce fix—it is a better model of care. Physicians focused on surgical decision-making and complex cases. APPs managing the longitudinal follow-up that stone-formers need and that drives outcomes. The two roles are indisputably complementary, and the data here suggest this arrangement works well where it has been tried.
Written by: Loren J. Smith, MD, Division of Urologic Surgery, Maine Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
Read the Abstract