Substitution of doctors by nurses in primary care.

Demand for primary care services has increased in developed countries due to population ageing, rising patient expectations, and reforms that shift care from hospitals to the community. At the same time, the supply of physicians is constrained and there is increasing pressure to contain costs. Shifting care from physicians to nurses is one possible response to these challenges. The expectation is that nurse-doctor substitution will reduce cost and physician workload while maintaining quality of care. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of doctor-nurse substitution in primary care on patient outcomes, process of care, and resource utilisation including cost. Patient outcomes included: morbidity; mortality; satisfaction; compliance; and preference. Process of care outcomes included: practitioner adherence to clinical guidelines; standards or quality of care; and practitioner health care activity (e.g. provision of advice). Resource utilisation was assessed by: frequency and length of consultations; return visits; prescriptions; tests and investigations; referral to other services; and direct or indirect costs. The following databases were searched for the period 1966 to 2002: Medline; Cinahl; Bids, Embase; Social Science Citation Index; British Nursing Index; HMIC; EPOC Register; and Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. Search terms specified the setting (primary care), professional (nurse), study design (randomised controlled trial, controlled before-and-after-study, interrupted time series), and subject (e.g. skill mix). Studies were included if nurses were compared to doctors providing a similar primary health care service (excluding accident and emergency services). Primary care doctors included: general practitioners, family physicians, paediatricians, general internists or geriatricians. Primary care nurses included: practice nurses, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, or advanced practice nurses. Study selection and data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers with differences resolved through discussion. Meta-analysis was applied to outcomes for which there was adequate reporting of intervention effects from at least three randomised controlled trials. Semi-quantitative methods were used to synthesize other outcomes. 4253 articles were screened of which 25 articles, relating to 16 studies, met our inclusion criteria. In seven studies the nurse assumed responsibility for first contact and ongoing care for all presenting patients. The outcomes investigated varied across studies so limiting the opportunity for data synthesis. In general, no appreciable differences were found between doctors and nurses in health outcomes for patients, process of care, resource utilisation or cost. In five studies the nurse assumed responsibility for first contact care for patients wanting urgent consultations during office hours or out-of-hours. Patient health outcomes were similar for nurses and doctors but patient satisfaction was higher with nurse-led care. Nurses tended to provide longer consultations, give more information to patients and recall patients more frequently than did doctors. The impact on physician workload and direct cost of care was variable. In four studies the nurse took responsibility for the ongoing management of patients with particular chronic conditions. The outcomes investigated varied across studies so limiting the opportunity for data synthesis. In general, no appreciable differences were found between doctors and nurses in health outcomes for patients, process of care, resource utilisation or cost. The findings suggest that appropriately trained nurses can produce as high quality care as primary care doctors and achieve as good health outcomes for patients. However, this conclusion should be viewed with caution given that only one study was powered to assess equivalence of care, many studies had methodological limitations, and patient follow-up was generally 12 months or less. While doctor-nurse substitution has the potential to reduce doctors' workload and direct healthcare costs, achieving such reductions depends on the particular context of care. Doctors' workload may remain unchanged either because nurses are deployed to meet previously unmet patient need or because nurses generate demand for care where previously there was none. Savings in cost depend on the magnitude of the salary differential between doctors and nurses, and may be offset by the lower productivity of nurses compared to doctors.

Laurant M ，Reeves D ，Hermens R ，Braspenning J ，Grol R ，Sibbald B ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care.

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. 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. 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'. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Laurant M ，van der Biezen M ，Wijers N ，Watananirun K ，Kontopantelis E ，van Vught AJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Having nurses take on tasks that are typically conducted by doctors (doctor-nurse substitution, a form of 'task-shifting') may help to address doctor shortages and reduce doctors' workload and human resource costs. A Cochrane Review of effectiveness studies suggested that nurse-led care probably leads to similar healthcare outcomes as care delivered by doctors. This finding highlights the need to explore the factors that affect the implementation of strategies to substitute doctors with nurses in primary care. In our qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focused on studies of nurses taking on tasks that are typically conducted by doctors working in primary care, including substituting doctors with nurses or expanding nurses' roles. (1) To identify factors influencing implementation of interventions to substitute doctors with nurses in primary care. (2) To explore how our synthesis findings related to, and helped to explain, the findings of the Cochrane intervention review of the effectiveness of substituting doctors with nurses. (3) To identify hypotheses for subgroup analyses for future updates of the Cochrane intervention review. We searched CINAHL and PubMed, contacted experts in the field, scanned the reference lists of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searches for key articles in the Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index databases, and 'related article' searches in PubMed. We constructed a maximum variation sample (exploring variables such as country level of development, aspects of care covered and the types of participants) from studies that had collected and analysed qualitative data related to the factors influencing implementation of doctor-nurse substitution and the expansion of nurses' tasks in community or primary care worldwide. We included perspectives of doctors, nurses, patients and their families/carers, policymakers, programme managers, other health workers and any others directly involved in or affected by the substitution. We excluded studies that collected data using qualitative methods but did not analyse the data qualitatively. We identified factors influencing implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies using a framework thematic synthesis approach. Two review authors independently assessed the methodological strengths and limitations of included studies using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. We assessed confidence in the evidence for the QES findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We integrated our findings with the evidence from the effectiveness review of doctor-nurse substitution using a matrix model. Finally, we identified hypotheses for subgroup analyses for updates of the review of effectiveness. We included 66 studies (69 papers), 11 from low- or middle-income countries and 55 from high-income countries. These studies found several factors that appeared to influence the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies. The following factors were based on findings that we assessed as moderate or high confidence.Patients in many studies knew little about nurses' roles and the difference between nurse-led and doctor-led care. They also had mixed views about the type of tasks that nurses should deliver. They preferred doctors when the tasks were more 'medical' but accepted nurses for preventive care and follow-ups. Doctors in most studies also preferred that nurses performed only 'non-medical' tasks. Nurses were comfortable with, and believed they were competent to deliver a wide range of tasks, but particularly emphasised tasks that were more health promotive/preventive in nature.Patients in most studies thought that nurses were more easily accessible than doctors. Doctors and nurses also saw nurse-doctor substitution and collaboration as a way of increasing people's access to care, and improving the quality and continuity of care.Nurses thought that close doctor-nurse relationships and doctor's trust in and acceptance of nurses was important for shaping their roles. But nurses working alone sometimes found it difficult to communicate with doctors.Nurses felt they had gained new skills when taking on new tasks. But nurses wanted more and better training. They thought this would increase their skills, job satisfaction and motivation, and would make them more independent.Nurses taking on doctors' tasks saw this as an opportunity to develop personally, to gain more respect and to improve the quality of care they could offer to patients. Better working conditions and financial incentives also motivated nurses to take on new tasks. Doctors valued collaborating with nurses when this reduced their own workload.Doctors and nurses pointed to the importance of having access to resources, such as enough staff, equipment and supplies; good referral systems; experienced leaders; clear roles; and adequate training and supervision. But they often had problems with these issues. They also pointed to the huge number of documents they needed to complete when tasks were moved from doctors to nurses. Patients, doctors and nurses may accept the use of nurses to deliver services that are usually delivered by doctors. But this is likely to depend on the type of services. Nurses taking on extra tasks want respect and collaboration from doctors; as well as proper resources; good referral systems; experienced leaders; clear roles; and adequate incentives, training and supervision. However, these needs are not always met.

Karimi-Shahanjarini A ，Shakibazadeh E ，Rashidian A ，Hajimiri K ，Glenton C ，Noyes J ，Lewin S ，Laurant M ，Colvin CJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter.

There has been a reported rise in the number of people with chronic illness (also referred to as long-term disease) in the Western world. One hundred million people in the United States have at least one chronic condition and in the United Kingdom (UK) as many as 17.5 million adults may be living with chronic disease. New models of care have been developed which recognise the complexities of managing care where there is overlap between the wider community, the health care system and provider organisations, for example, the Chronic Care Model and the Expert Patient Programme. These new models herald a shift away from the idea of chronically ill patients as passive recipients of care towards active engagement, in partnership with health professionals, in managing their own care.Partnership, ideally, involves collaborative care and self-management education. This may support self-care alongside medical, preventative and health maintenance interventions. In this context the nature of the patient-practitioner consultation in promoting self-care takes on a new importance. The overall objective of the review was to determine the best available evidence regarding the promotion and support of self-care management for adults living in the community with chronic illness during the patient-practitioner encounter. Specifically the review sought to determine: What is the effectiveness of the patient-practitioner encounter in promoting and supporting self-care management of people with chronic illness? What are the individual and organisational factors which help or hinder recognition, promotion and support of chronic disease self-care management strategies? What are the similarities and differences between how 'effectiveness' is defined in this context by patients and different practitioners? The review focussed on self-caring adults aged nineteen years and older living in the community, with a physical chronic illness, and not currently being treated as an in-patient. For example, people with diabetes, asthma, arthritis, coronary disease, lung disease, heart failure, epilepsy, kidney disease and inflammatory bowel disease. Since patients meet various professionals in a variety of community settings regarding their care, a practitioner in this review included doctors (physicians and General Practitioners), nurses, nurse specialists, dieticians, podiatrists and community health workers.A variety of outcomes measures was used to evaluate effective self-care management. These included physiological measurements such as: HbA1c, blood pressure, body weight, lipids; lifestyle measurements, for example physical activity; and self-care determinants such as knowledge, attitude; and self-care behaviours regarding, for example, diet and physical exercise, and medication. The outcome measures used to explore the meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter, concerned patients', physicians' and nurses' views and perceptions of self-care management and support.The review considered all types of quantitative and qualitative evidence regarding the patient-practitioner encounter where self-care in chronic illness was the focus. The quantitative studies reviewed included systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and survey studies.Qualitative studies reviewed included interview designs, vignette technique, qualitative evaluation, grounded theory, and exploratory descriptive design. The search sought to find both published and unpublished studies between 1990 and 2005. The year 1990 was deemed appropriate since it precedes the development of the Chronic Care Model in which self-management support for people living with chronic illness is heralded as an important part of care-management. An initial search of CINAHL and MEDLINE databases was undertaken to identify appropriate search terms regarding self-care and chronic illness. A search strategy was then developed using all identified MeSH headings and key words and the following databases were searched: - Ovid CINAHL; Ovid MEDLINE (R); Ovid EMBASE; Ovid EBM Reviews (CDSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR); ASSIA; SIGLE; Digital Dissertations; and British Library's Zetoc Services. Thirty-two papers were considered applicable to the review topic from the title and abstract. Two reviewers used the appropriate critical appraisal instruments designed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) to assess methodological quality of papers retrieved for review, and agreed on the papers for inclusion. A total of 18 papers reporting 16 studies were included in the review (3 papers reported from the same study): 12 quantitative studies, 5 qualitative studies and 1 study using mixed methods. These papers were heterogeneous in nature, diverse in subject matter and considered a wide range of physiological, psychological, sociological and behavioural self-care outcome measures. Data were extracted by the two independent reviewers using a variety of data extraction instruments developed by JBI. The heterogeneous nature of the quantitative studies prevented meta-analysis and so these studies are presented in narrative summary. Meta-synthesis of the qualitative data was performed for the six qualitative pieces following the process of meta-synthesis set out in the JBI-QARI software package. The process of meta-synthesis embodied in this programme involves the aggregation or synthesis of findings. Seven syntheses were produced from fifty findings. For effective patient-centeredness to be established patients should be able to discuss their own ideas about self-care actions, including lifestyle management in an unhurried fashion and with a practitioner who has the time and who is willing to listen. Patient-centred interventions aimed at providers such as patient-centred training and patient-centred materials were shown to have a positive effect on the patient-centeredness of an encounter, but their effect on self-care outcomes was not clear. Interventions directed at enhancing patient participation in the encounter were shown to effect diabetes self-care and self-behaviour.Nurses were shown to have an effective role in educating patients and facilitating adherence to treatment. Patients found nurses approachable and some studies showed that when given the choice, patients were more likely to contact a nurse (than a doctor) regarding their care.Professional interventions such as education, and organisational interventions such as management of regular review and follow up, were shown to improve process outcomes in the management of a patient-practitioner encounter. When patient-orientated interventions were added to professional and organisational interventions, in which patient education and / or the role of the nurse was enhanced, patient health outcomes were improved.The different patient-orientated interventions reviewed highlighted some of the elements that can effectively support self-care management during a patient-practitioner encounter. These are information giving, including the use of a guidebook, the use of care plans, the structure of treatment using checklists, and education and support for staff in 'collaboratives'.Comprehensive, well-paced, user-friendly information is effective in supporting and promoting self-care management in a variety of ways. It informs and reassures patients and their families. It can be used during a doctor/patient consultation to assist communication between doctors and patients, and may help patients feel more involved in their care.For information to effect self-care management, it is important that it is given at diagnosis and from then onwards so that the implications of good self-care management in relation to long term health outcomes are established.Care plans and self-management plans can be useful in facilitating patients' discussion of self-care actions and lifestyle management.Organisational factors affect opportunities for professionals to support patient self-care management. These include time, resources, the existing configuration and expectations of a consultation, the opportunity for open access to appointments, the ability to see the same doctor and early referral to other professional groups.Correlational design studies indicated that individual psychological factors, such as attachment style and autonomy support given to a patient during a patient-practitioner encounter, have a relationship to self-care behaviours and outcomes.Correlational design studies indicated that both general communication and diabetic specific communication used during a patient-practitioner encounter have a positive effect on patient self-care management and outcomes for patients with diabetes.Consultations about self-care for patients with chronic illness tend to be medically focussed and do not always include discussion of patients' views of the routines and self-care actions. This can lead to tension and unresolved issues between the patient and professional.Studies in the context of diabetes self-management reveal that professionals can effectively support patients in a number of ways. These include assisting the orientation of patients towards skills and competencies needed for self-care; sharing knowledge and information; endorsing the patient's view that he or she is the most reliable and accurate source of information about his or her physiological function; trusting the patients' interpretations of their physiological function, and modifying advice in response to patients in accordance with their bodily cues and experiences. The nature of the patient-practitioner encounter is multifaceted involving patient, professional and organisational factors. Patient-orientated interventions are the most effective in effecting positive self-care behavioural and health outcomes. Patient participation in the patient-practitioner encounter is a key factor in influencing self-care outcomes. Patients' self-care management involves social as well as medical management. Professionals need to recognise and value patients' views and experiences in order to support their self-care management. Patients need information at diagnosis and from then onwards to enable good self-care management. It is important to enable patient participation during the patient-practitioner encounter.For patients' self-care needs to be addressed opportunities for patients to talk about their diet, routines and lifestyle management need to be incorporated into the encounter. Extra time in consultations may be required. Care plans can help to facilitate this discussion.To support patients with their self-care management, both sharing of medical and nursing knowledge, and recognition of the value of patient's knowledge and experiences are vital.Nurses relate well to patients who want to discuss self-care management.Professional interventions and organisational interventions can improve the management of a patient-practitioner encounter. Patient-orientated interventions in addition to good management of the encounter can improve health care outcomes. Patient focussed interventions have a positive effect on patient self-care outcomes. Further research regarding patients' self-care and health outcomes and behaviours is needed to establish which patient focussed interventions in particular are effective.Qualitative research has proved to be important in understanding the different ways that professionals and patients approach self-care management during an encounter. More qualitative research would assist an understanding of the processes that inspire effective partnership between patients and professionals to support the establishment of self-care management of chronic illness.

Rees S ，Williams A 《-》

Telephone consultation and triage: effects on health care use and patient satisfaction.

Telephone consultation is the process where calls are received, assessed and managed by giving advice or by referral to a more appropriate service. In recent years there has been a growth in telephone consultation developed, in part, as a response to increased demand for General Practitioner (GP) and Accident and Emergency (A&E) department care. To assess the effects of telephone consultation on safety, service usage and patient satisfaction and to compare telephone consultation by different health care professionals. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the specialised register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group, Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SIGLE, and the National Research Register. We checked reference lists of identified studies and review articles and contacted experts in the field. The search was not restricted by language or publication status. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled studies, controlled before/after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITSs) of telephone consultation or triage in a general health care setting. Disease specific phone lines were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion in the review, extracted data and assessed study quality. Data were collected on adverse events, service usage, cost and patient satisfaction. Due to heterogeneity we did not pool studies in a meta-analysis and instead present a narrative summary of the findings. Nine studies met our inclusion criteria, five RCTs, one CCT and three ITSs. Six studies compared telephone consultation versus normal care; four by a doctor, one by a nurse and one by a clinic clerk. Three studies compared telephone consultation by different types of health care workers; two compared nurses with doctors and one compared health assistants with doctors or nurses. Three of five studies found a decrease in visits to GP's but two found a significant increase in return consultations. In general at least 50% of calls were handled by telephone advice alone. Seven studies looked at accident and emergency department visits, six showed no difference between the groups and one, of nurse telephone consultation, found an increase in visits. Two studies reported deaths and found no difference between nurse telephone triage and normal care. Telephone consultation appears to reduce the number of surgery contacts and out-of-hours visits by general practitioners. However, questions remain about its affect on service use and further rigorous evaluation is needed with emphasis on service use, safety, cost and patient satisfaction.

Bunn F ，Byrne G ，Kendall S 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》