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.
One way in which governments are seeking to improve the efficiency of the health care sector is by redesigning health services to contain labour costs. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of new professional roles on a wide range of health service outcomes and costs. A systematic literature review was performed by searching in different databases for evaluation papers of new professional roles (published 1985-2013). The PRISMA checklist was used to conduct and report the systematic literature review and the EPHPP-Quality Assessment Tool to assess the quality of the studies. Forty-one studies of specialist nurses (SNs) and advanced nurse practitioners (ANPs) were selected for data extraction and analysis. The 25 SN studies evaluated most often quality of life (10 studies), clinical outcomes (8), and costs (8). Significant advantages were seen most frequently regarding health care utilization (in 3 of 3 studies), patient information (5 of 6), and patient satisfaction (4 of 6). The 16 ANP studies evaluated most often patient satisfaction (8), clinical outcomes (5), and costs (5). Significant advantages were seen most frequently regarding clinical outcomes (5 of 5), patient information (3 of 4), and patient satisfaction (5 of 8). Promoting new professional roles may help improve health care delivery and possibly contain costs. Exploring the optimal skill-mix deserves further attention from health care professionals, researchers and policy makers.
BACKGROUND: Current literature systematically reports that interventions to attract and retain health workers in underserved areas need to be context specific but rarely defines what that means. In this systematic review, we try to summarize and analyse context factors influencing the implementation of interventions to attract and retain rural health workers.
METHODS: We searched online databases, relevant websites and reference lists of selected literature to identify studies on compulsory rural service programmes and financial incentives. Forty studies were selected. Information regarding context factors at macro, meso and micro levels was extracted and synthesized.
RESULTS: Macro-level context factors include political, economic and social factors. Meso-level factors include health system factors such as maldistribution of health workers, growing private sector, decentralization and health financing. Micro-level factors refer to the policy implementation process including funding sources, administrative agency, legislation process, monitoring and evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: Macro-, meso- and micro-level context factors can play different roles in agenda setting, policy formulation and implementation of health interventions to attract and retain rural health workers. These factors should be systematically considered in the different stages of policy process and evaluation.
Background: In 2008, we conducted a systematic review on the effects of nurse prescribing using studies with a comparative design. In view of the growing number of countries that are introducing nurse prescribing and the fact that several studies into nurse prescribing have been conducted recently, there is a need for an updated review to reassess the available information on the effects of nurse prescribing when compared to physician prescribing. Objective: To identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence on the effects of nurse prescribing when compared to physician prescribing on the quantity and types of medication prescribed and on patient outcomes. Design: A systematic review. Data sources: In addition to the previous review, which covered the literature up to 2005, 11 literature databases and four websites were searched for relevant studies from January 2006 up to January 2012 without limitations as to language or country. Moreover, full-text copies of all studies included in the previous review were reviewed. Review methods: A three-stage inclusion process, consisting of an initial sifting, checking full-text papers for inclusion criteria and methodological assessment, was performed independently by two reviewers. Data on effects were synthesised using narrative and tabular methods. Results: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. All but five studies had a high risk of bias. Nurses prescribe in comparable ways to physicians. They prescribe for equal numbers of patients and prescribe comparable types and doses of medicines. Studies comparing the total amount of medication prescribed by nurses and doctors show mixed results. There appear to be few differences between nurses and physicians in patient health outcomes: clinical parameters were the same or better for treatment by nurses, perceived quality of care was similar or better and patients treated by nurses were just as satisfied or more satisfied. Conclusions: The effects of nurse prescribing on medication and patient outcomes seem positive when compared to physician prescribing. However, conclusions must remain tentative due to methodological weaknesses in this body of research. More randomised controlled designs in the field of nurse prescribing are required for definitive conclusions about the effects of nurse prescribing.
BackgroundIn this review study, we are the first to explore whether the practice nurse (PN) can act as case manager lifestyle counselling regarding weight management in primary care.MethodsMultiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO) were searched to identify relevant literature after 1995. Forty-five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In addition, all studies were judged on ten quality criteria by two independent reviewers.ResultsEspecially in the last three years, many studies have been published. The majority of the studies were positive about PNs¿ actual role in primary care. However, several studies dealt with competency issues, including disagreement on respective roles. Thirteen studies were perceived as high quality. Only few studies had a representative sample. PNs¿ role in chronic disease management is spreading increasingly into lifestyle counselling. Although PNs have more time to provide lifestyle counselling than general practitioners (GPs), lack of time still remains a barrier. In some countries, PNs were rather ambiguous about their role, and they did not agree with GPs on this.ConclusionThe PN can play the role of case manager lifestyle counselling regarding weight management in primary care in the UK, and wherever PNs are working under supervision of a GP and a primary health care team is already developed with agreement on roles. In countries in which a primary health care team is still in development and there is no agreement on respective roles, such as the USA, it is still the question whether the PN can play the case manager role.
Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles. Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization). Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012. Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n = 11), NP-transition (n = 5), NP-inpatient (n = 2), CNS-outpatient (n = 11), CNS-transition (n = 13), and CNS-inpatient (n = 1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity. Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to chronicle the development of the advanced practice nurse (APN) in France and compare international APN indictors of quality care with French studies.
DATA SOURCES: A review of the literature was performed by accessing the MEDLINE, Science Direct, and Cochrane Databases for studies of quality of care by APNs during 1965-2012. The author's participation on a national task force in collaboration with the French Ministry of Health provided additional information.
CONCLUSIONS: After applying limits of this search, 36 studies fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria. In both the French and international APN nursing literature, the most frequently described quality of care measures were level of patient satisfaction and other patient outcomes (clinical and laboratory measures) according to evidence-based guidelines. In three French studies (nephrology, neuro-oncology, and urology settings), nurses performed direct patient care and were legally permitted to take on some limited responsibilities usually held by French physicians, including clinical examinations, diagnosing, and prescribing.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Creation of the APN role in France can respond to public health challenges including the rising incidence of chronic diseases and an impending physician shortage. Future APN research should focus on rigorous, innovative design development including collaborative care models.
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.
Informal health care providers (IPs) comprise a significant component of health systems in developing nations. Yet little is known about the most basic characteristics of performance, cost, quality, utilization, and size of this sector. To address this gap we conducted a comprehensive literature review on the informal health care sector in developing countries. We searched for studies published since 2000 through electronic databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and relevant grey literature from The New York Academy of Medicine, The World Bank, The Center for Global Development, USAID, SHOPS (formerly PSP-One), The World Health Organization, DFID, Human Resources for Health Global Resource Center. In total, 334 articles were retrieved, and 122 met inclusion criteria and chosen for data abstraction. Results indicate that IPs make up a significant portion of the healthcare sector globally, with almost half of studies (48%) from Sub-Saharan Africa. Utilization estimates from 24 studies in the literature of IP for healthcare services ranged from 9% to 90% of all healthcare interactions, depending on the country, the disease in question, and methods of measurement. IPs operate in a variety of health areas, although baseline information on quality is notably incomplete and poor quality of care is generally assumed. There was a wide variation in how quality of care is measured. The review found that IPs reported inadequate drug provision, poor adherence to clinical national guidelines, and that there were gaps in knowledge and provider practice; however, studies also found that the formal sector also reported poor provider practices. Reasons for using IPs included convenience, affordability, and social and cultural effects. Recommendations from the literature amount to a call for more engagement with the IP sector. IPs are a large component of nearly all developing country health systems. Research and policies of engagement are needed.
Objective: To assess the effectiveness of care provided by mid-level health workers. Methods: Experimental and observational studies comparing mid-level health workers and higher level health workers were identified by a systematic review of the scientific literature. The quality of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria and data were analysed using Review Manager. Findings: Fifty-three studies, mostly from high-income countries and conducted at tertiary care facilities, were identified. In general, there was no difference between the effectiveness of care provided by mid-level health workers in the areas of maternal and child health and communicable and noncommunicable diseases and that provided by higher level health workers. However, the rates of episiotomy and analgesia use were significantly lower in women giving birth who received care from midwives alone than in those who received care from doctors working in teams with midwives, and women were significantly more satisfied with care from midwives. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low or very low. The search also identified six observational studies, all from Africa, that compared care from clinical officers, surgical technicians or non-physician clinicians with care from doctors. Outcomes were generally similar. Conclusion: No difference between the effectiveness of care provided by mid-level health workers and that provided by higher level health workers was found. However, the quality of the evidence was low. There is a need for studies with a high methodological quality, particularly in Africa -- the region with the greatest shortage of health workers.
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.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
