91
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care

      systematic-review
      , , , , ,
      The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
      John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
      Humans, Practice Patterns, Nurses', Family Practice, Family Practice/economics, Family Practice/organization & administration, Health Services Needs and Demand, Health Services Needs and Demand/economics, Health Services Needs and Demand/organization & administration, Nurse Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners/organization & administration, Nursing Staff, Nursing Staff/organization & administration, Personnel Delegation, Personnel Delegation/organization & administration, Primary Health Care, Primary Health Care/economics, Primary Health Care/organization & administration, Quality of Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Current and expected problems such as ageing, increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi‐morbidity, increased emphasis on healthy lifestyle and prevention, and substitution for care from hospitals by care provided in the community encourage countries worldwide to develop new models of primary care delivery. Owing to the fact that many tasks do not necessarily require the knowledge and skills of a doctor, interest in using nurses to expand the capacity of the primary care workforce is increasing. Substitution of nurses for doctors is one strategy used to improve access, efficiency, and quality of care. This is the first update of the Cochrane review published in 2005.

          Objectives

          Our aim was to investigate the impact of nurses working as substitutes for primary care doctors on:

          • patient outcomes;

          • processes of care; and

          • utilisation, including volume and cost.

          Search methods

          We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of the Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com), as well as MEDLINE, Ovid, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and EbscoHost (searched 20.01.2015). We searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (21.02.2017), and we searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries (21.02.2017). We did a cited reference search for relevant studies (searched 27.01 2015) and checked reference lists of all included studies. We reran slightly revised strategies, limited to publication years between 2015 and 2017, for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and CINAHL, in March 2017, and we have added one trial to ‘Studies awaiting classification’.

          Selection criteria

          Randomised trials evaluating the outcomes of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. The review is limited to primary healthcare services that provide first contact and ongoing care for patients with all types of health problems, excluding mental health problems. Studies which evaluated nurses supplementing the work of primary care doctors were excluded.

          Data collection and analysis

          Two review authors independently carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies. When feasible, we combined study results and determined an overall estimate of the effect. We evaluated other outcomes by completing a structured synthesis.

          Main results

          For this review, we identified 18 randomised trials evaluating the impact of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. One study was conducted in a middle‐income country, and all other studies in high‐income countries. The nursing level was often unclear or varied between and even within studies. The studies looked at nurses involved in first contact care (including urgent care), ongoing care for physical complaints, and follow‐up of patients with a particular chronic conditions such as diabetes. In many of the studies, nurses could get additional support or advice from a doctor. Nurse‐doctor substitution for preventive services and health education in primary care has been less well studied.

          Study findings suggest that care delivered by nurses, compared to care delivered by doctors, probably generates similar or better health outcomes for a broad range of patient conditions (low‐ or moderate‐certainty evidence):

          • Nurse‐led primary care may lead to slightly fewer deaths among certain groups of patients, compared to doctor‐led care. However, the results vary and it is possible that nurse‐led primary care makes little or no difference to the number of deaths (low‐certainty evidence).

          • Blood pressure outcomes are probably slightly improved in nurse‐led primary care. Other clinical or health status outcomes are probably similar (moderate‐certainty evidence).

          • Patient satisfaction is probably slightly higher in nurse‐led primary care (moderate‐certainty evidence). Quality of life may be slightly higher (low‐certainty evidence).

          We are uncertain of the effects of nurse‐led care on process of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low.

          The effect of nurse‐led care on utilisation of care is mixed and depends on the type of outcome. Consultations are probably longer in nurse‐led primary care (moderate‐certainty evidence), and numbers of attended return visits are slightly higher for nurses than for doctors (high‐certainty evidence). We found little or no difference between nurses and doctors in the number of prescriptions and attendance at accident and emergency units (high‐certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the number of tests and investigations, hospital referrals and hospital admissions between nurses and doctors (low‐certainty evidence).

          We are uncertain of the effects of nurse‐led care on the costs of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low.

          Authors' conclusions

          This review shows that for some ongoing and urgent physical complaints and for chronic conditions, trained nurses, such as nurse practitioners, practice nurses, and registered nurses, probably provide equal or possibly even better quality of care compared to primary care doctors, and probably achieve equal or better health outcomes for patients. Nurses probably achieve higher levels of patient satisfaction, compared to primary care doctors. Furthermore, consultation length is probably longer when nurses deliver care and the frequency of attended return visits is probably slightly higher for nurses, compared to doctors. Other utilisation outcomes are probably the same. The effects of nurse‐led care on process of care and the costs of care are uncertain, and we also cannot ascertain what level of nursing education leads to the best outcomes when nurses are substituted for doctors.

          Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care

          What is the aim of this review?

          The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out what happens when primary healthcare services are delivered by nurses instead of doctors. We collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found 18 studies for inclusion in the review.

          What are the key messages of this review?

          Delivery of primary healthcare services by nurses instead of doctors probably leads to similar or better patient health and higher patient satisfaction. Nurses probably also have longer consultations with patients. Using nurses instead of doctors makes little or no difference in the numbers of prescriptions and tests ordered. However, the impacts on the amount of information offered to patients, on the extent to which guidelines are followed and on healthcare costs are uncertain.

          What was studied in this review?

          In most countries, the population is growing older and more people have chronic disease. This means that the services that primary healthcare workers need to deliver are changing. At the same time, many countries lack doctors and other healthcare workers, or people struggle to pay for healthcare services. By using nurses instead of doctors, countries hope to deliver care of the same quality for less money.

          In this review, we searched for studies that compared nurses to doctors for delivery of primary care services. We looked at whether this made any difference in patients’ health, satisfaction, and use of services. We also looked at whether this made any difference in how services were delivered and in how much they cost.

          What are the main results of this review?

          We included in this review 18 studies, mainly from high‐income countries. In some studies, nurses were responsible for all patients who came to the clinic or for all patients who needed urgent consultation. In some studies, nurses were responsible for patients with particular chronic diseases, or were responsible for providing healthcare education or preventive services to certain groups of patients. Included studies compared these nurses to doctors carrying out the same tasks.

          Our review shows that nurse‐led primary care may lead to slightly fewer deaths among certain groups of patients, compared to doctor‐led care. However, the results vary and it is possible that nurse‐led primary care makes little or no difference to the number of deaths. In addition, patients probably have similar or better results in areas of health such as heart disease, diabetes, rheumatism, and high blood pressure. Patients also are probably slightly more satisfied with their care and may have a slightly better quality of life when treated by nurses.

          This review also shows that, compared to doctors, nurses probably have longer consultations, and their patients are slightly more likely to keep follow‐up appointments. Studies found little or no difference in the number of prescriptions and there may be little or no difference in the numbers of tests and investigations ordered, or in patients’ use of other services. The effects of nurse‐led primary care on the amount of advice and information given to patients, and on whether guidelines are followed, are uncertain as the certainty of these findings is very low.

          Our review suggests that the impacts on the costs of care of using nurses instead of doctors to deliver primary care are uncertain. We assessed the certainty of this finding as very low.

          How up‐to‐date is this review?

          We searched for studies that had been published up to March 2017.

          Related collections

          Most cited references77

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Task shifting of antiretroviral treatment from doctors to primary-care nurses in South Africa (STRETCH): a pragmatic, parallel, cluster-randomised trial

          Summary Background Robust evidence of the effectiveness of task shifting of antiretroviral therapy (ART) from doctors to other health workers is scarce. We aimed to assess the effects on mortality, viral suppression, and other health outcomes and quality indicators of the Streamlining Tasks and Roles to Expand Treatment and Care for HIV (STRETCH) programme, which provides educational outreach training of nurses to initiate and represcribe ART, and to decentralise care. Methods We undertook a pragmatic, parallel, cluster-randomised trial in South Africa between Jan 28, 2008, and June 30, 2010. We randomly assigned 31 primary-care ART clinics to implement the STRETCH programme (intervention group) or to continue with standard care (control group). The ratio of randomisation depended on how many clinics were in each of nine strata. Two cohorts were enrolled: eligible patients in cohort 1 were adults (aged ≥16 years) with CD4 counts of 350 cells per μL or less who were not receiving ART; those in cohort 2 were adults who had already received ART for at least 6 months and were being treated at enrolment. The primary outcome in cohort 1 was time to death (superiority analysis). The primary outcome in cohort 2 was the proportion with undetectable viral loads (<400 copies per mL) 12 months after enrolment (equivalence analysis, prespecified difference <6%). Patients and clinicians could not be masked to group assignment. The interim analysis was blind, but data analysts were not masked after the database was locked for final analysis. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN46836853. Findings 5390 patients in cohort 1 and 3029 in cohort 2 were in the intervention group, and 3862 in cohort 1 and 3202 in cohort 2 were in the control group. Median follow-up was 16·3 months (IQR 12·2–18·0) in cohort 1 and 18·0 months (18·0–18·0) in cohort 2. In cohort 1, 997 (20%) of 4943 patients analysed in the intervention group and 747 (19%) of 3862 in the control group with known vital status at the end of the trial had died. Time to death did not differ (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·76–1·15). In a preplanned subgroup analysis of patients with baseline CD4 counts of 201–350 cells per μL, mortality was slightly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (0·73, 0·54–1.00; p=0·052), but it did not differ between groups in patients with baseline CD4 of 200 cells per μL or less (0·94, 0·76–1·15; p=0·577). In cohort 2, viral load suppression 12 months after enrolment was equivalent in intervention (2156 [71%] of 3029 patients) and control groups (2230 [70%] of 3202; risk difference 1·1%, 95% CI −2·4 to 4·6). Interpretation Expansion of primary-care nurses' roles to include ART initiation and represcription can be done safely, and improve health outcomes and quality of care, but might not reduce time to ART or mortality. Funding UK Medical Research Council, Development Cooperation Ireland, and Canadian International Development Agency.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Projecting US primary care physician workforce needs: 2010-2025.

            We sought to project the number of primary care physicians required to meet US health care utilization needs through 2025 after passage of the Affordable Care Act. In this projection of workforce needs, we used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to calculate the use of office-based primary care in 2008. We used US Census Bureau projections to account for demographic changes and the American Medical Association's Masterfile to calculate the number of primary care physicians and determine the number of visits per physician. The main outcomes were the projected number of primary care visits through 2025 and the number of primary care physicians needed to conduct those visits. Driven by population growth and aging, the total number of office visits to primary care physicians is projected to increase from 462 million in 2008 to 565 million in 2025. After incorporating insurance expansion, the United States will require nearly 52,000 additional primary care physicians by 2025. Population growth will be the largest driver, accounting for 33,000 additional physicians, while 10,000 additional physicians will be needed to accommodate population aging. Insurance expansion will require more than 8,000 additional physicians, a 3% increase in the current workforce. Population growth will be the greatest driver of expected increases in primary care utilization. Aging and insurance expansion will also contribute to utilization, but to a smaller extent.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Using realist evaluation to open the black box of knowledge translation: a state-of-the-art review

              Background In knowledge translation, complex interventions may be implemented in the attempt to improve uptake of research-based knowledge in practice. Traditional evaluation efforts that focus on aggregate effectiveness represent an oversimplification of both the environment and the interventions themselves. However, theory-based approaches to evaluation, such as realist evaluation (RE), may be better-suited to examination of complex knowledge translation interventions with a view to understanding what works, for whom, and under what conditions. It is the aim of the present state-of-the-art review to examine current literature with regard to the use of RE in the assessment of knowledge translation interventions implemented within healthcare environments. Methods Multiple online databases were searched from 1997 through June 2013. Primary studies examining the application or implementation of knowledge translation interventions within healthcare settings and using RE were selected for inclusion. Varying applications of RE across studies were examined in terms of a) reporting of core elements of RE, and b) potential feasibility of this evaluation method. Results A total of 14 studies (6 study protocols), published between 2007 and 2013, were identified for inclusion. Projects were initiated in a variety of healthcare settings and represented a range of interventions. While a majority of authors mentioned context (C), mechanism (M) and outcome (O), a minority reported the development of C-M-O configurations or testable hypotheses based on these configurations. Four completed studies reported results that included refinement of proposed C-M-O configurations and offered explanations within the RE framework. In the few studies offering insight regarding challenges associated with the use of RE, difficulties were expressed regarding the definition of both mechanisms and contextual factors. Overall, RE was perceived as time-consuming and resource intensive. Conclusions The use of RE in knowledge translation is relatively new; however, theory-building approaches to the examination of complex interventions in this area may be increasing as researchers attempt to identify what works, for whom and under what circumstances. Completion of the RE cycle may be challenging, particularly in the development of C-M-O configurations; however, as researchers approach challenges and explore innovations in its application, rich and detailed accounts may improve feasibility.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Miranda.Laurant@han.nl
                Journal
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                14651858
                10.1002/14651858
                The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Chichester, UK )
                1469-493X
                16 July 2018
                July 2018
                06 February 2019
                16 July 2018
                : 2018
                : 7
                : CD001271
                Affiliations
                Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare deptRadboud University Medical Center PO Box 9101NijmegenNetherlands6500 HB
                HAN University of Applied Sciences deptFaculty of Health and Social Studies NijmegenNetherlands
                deptZorgbelang Gelderland ArnhemNetherlands
                Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University deptDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology MahidolThailand
                The University of Manchester deptCentre for Health Informatics, Institute of Population Health Williamson Building, 5th FloorOxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9PL
                Author notes

                Editorial Group: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group.

                Article
                CD001271 CD001271.pub3
                10.1002/14651858.CD001271.pub3
                6367893
                30011347
                0093590a-9eaf-4efb-a0d0-60d434246cf1
                Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which allows remixing, tweaking, and building upon the original work non-commercially, and although the new works must also acknowledge the original work and be non-commercial, derivative works don’t have to be licensed under the same terms.

                History
                : 20 April 2005
                Categories
                Medicine General & Introductory Medical Sciences

                humans,practice patterns, nurses',family practice,family practice/economics,family practice/organization & administration,health services needs and demand,health services needs and demand/economics,health services needs and demand/organization & administration,nurse practitioners,nurse practitioners/organization & administration,nursing staff,nursing staff/organization & administration,personnel delegation,personnel delegation/organization & administration,primary health care,primary health care/economics,primary health care/organization & administration,quality of health care,randomized controlled trials as topic

                Comments

                Comment on this article