38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Descriptive, cross-country analysis of the nurse practitioner workforce in six countries: size, growth, physician substitution potential

      research-article

      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

          Objectives

          Many countries are facing provider shortages and imbalances in primary care or are projecting shortfalls for the future, triggered by the rise in chronic diseases and multimorbidity. In order to assess the potential of nurse practitioners (NPs) in expanding access, we analysed the size, annual growth (2005–2015) and the extent of advanced practice of NPs in 6 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

          Design

          Cross-country data analysis of national nursing registries, regulatory bodies, statistical offices data as well as OECD health workforce and population data, plus literature scoping review.

          Setting/participants

          NP and physician workforces in 6 OECD countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and USA).

          Primary and secondary outcome measures

          The main outcomes were the absolute and relative number of NPs per 100 000 population compared with the nursing and physician workforces, the compound annual growth rates, annual and median percentage changes from 2005 to 2015 and a synthesis of the literature on the extent of advanced clinical practice measured by physician substitution effect.

          Results

          The USA showed the highest absolute number of NPs and rate per population (40.5 per 100 000 population), followed by the Netherlands (12.6), Canada (9.8), Australia (4.4), and Ireland and New Zealand (3.1, respectively). Annual growth rates were high in all countries, ranging from annual compound rates of 6.1% in the USA to 27.8% in the Netherlands. Growth rates were between three and nine times higher compared with physicians. Finally, the empirical studies emanating from the literature scoping review suggested that NPs are able to provide 67–93% of all primary care services, yet, based on limited evidence.

          Conclusions

          NPs are a rapidly growing workforce with high levels of advanced practice potential in primary care. Workforce monitoring based on accurate data is critical to inform educational capacity and workforce planning.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

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

          Cochrane Update. 'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Substitution of physicians by nurses in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            Background In many countries, substitution of physicians by nurses has become common due to the shortage of physicians and the need for high-quality, affordable care, especially for chronic and multi-morbid patients. We examined the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and care costs of physician-nurse substitution in primary care. Methods We systematically searched OVID Medline and Embase, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, up to August 2012; selected and critically appraised published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared nurse-led care with care by primary care physicians on patient satisfaction, Quality of Life (QoL), hospital admission, mortality and costs of healthcare. We assessed the individual study risk of bias, calculated the study-specific and pooled relative risks (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD); and performed fixed-effects meta-analyses. Results 24 RCTs (38,974 participants) and 2 economic studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analyses showed higher overall scores of patient satisfaction with nurse-led care (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.23), in RCTs of single contact or urgent care, short (less than 6 months) follow-up episodes and in small trials (N ≤ 200). Nurse-led care was effective at reducing the overall risk of hospital admission (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91), mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96), in RCTs of on-going or non-urgent care, longer (at least 12 months) follow-up episodes and in larger (N > 200) RCTs. Higher quality RCTs (with better allocation concealment and less attrition) showed higher rates of hospital admissions and mortality with nurse-led care albeit less or not significant. The results seemed more consistent across nurse practitioners than with registered or licensed nurses. The effects of nurse-led care on QoL and costs were difficult to interpret due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, valuation of resources and the small number of studies. Conclusions The available evidence continues to be limited by the quality of the research considered. Nurse-led care seems to have a positive effect on patient satisfaction, hospital admission and mortality. This important finding should be confirmed and the determinants of this effect should be assessed in further, larger and more methodically rigorous research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An international survey on advanced practice nursing education, practice, and regulation.

              To describe international trends on the developing role of the nurse practitioner-advanced practice nurse (NP-APN), including nomenclature, levels and types of NP-APN education, practice settings, scope of practice, regulatory policies, and political environment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                6 September 2016
                : 6
                : 9
                : e011901
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Harkness & B. Braun Fellow in Healthcare Policy and Practice; Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, Research University of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing, Claire Fagin Hall , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
                [2 ]Department of Healthcare Management, Technische Universität Berlin , Berlin, Germany
                [3 ]Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
                [4 ]Department of Healthcare Management, Head of the Berlin Hub of the European Health Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Technische Universität Berlin , Berlin, Germany
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Claudia B Maier; c.maier@ 123456tu-berlin.de
                Article
                bmjopen-2016-011901
                10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011901
                5020757
                27601498
                0615794e-29cd-4ab9-bc61-a7926504511d
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 14 March 2016
                : 10 July 2016
                : 18 August 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute of Nursing Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000056;
                Award ID: T32NR007104
                Funded by: Commonwealth Fund, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000905;
                Award ID: n/a
                Funded by: B. Braun Melsungen, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007534;
                Award ID: n/a
                Categories
                Nursing
                Research
                1506
                1715
                1699

                Medicine
                nursing,health workforce,physicians,primary care,nurse practitioner
                Medicine
                nursing, health workforce, physicians, primary care, nurse practitioner

                Comments

                Comment on this article