Dataset Information

Comparing the cost of nurse practitioners and GPs in primary care: modelling economic data from randomised trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The role of nurse practitioners in primary care has recently expanded. While there are some outcome data available for different types of consultations, little is known about the relative cost.

Aim

To compare the cost of primary care provided by nurse practitioners with that of salaried GPs.

Design of study

Synthesis, modelling, and analysis of published data from the perspective of general practices and the NHS.

Data sources

Two published randomised controlled trials.

Method

A dataset of resource use for a simulated group of patients in a typical consultation was modelled. Current unit costs were used to obtain a consensus mean cost per consultation.

Results

Mean cost of a nurse practitioner consultation was estimated at 9.46 UK pounds (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.16 to 9.75 pounds) and for a GP was 9.30 UK pounds (95% CI = 9.04 to 9.56 pounds) according to salary and overheads, that is, from the perspective of general practices. From the NHS perspective, which included training costs, the estimated mean costs were 30.35 UK pounds (95% CI = 27.10 to 33.59 pounds) and 28.14 UK pounds (95% CI = 25.43 to 30.84 pounds) respectively. Sensitivity analysis suggested that the time spent by GPs contributing to nurse practitioners' consultations (including return visits) was an important factor in increasing costs associated with nurse practitioners.

Conclusion

Employing a nurse practitioner in primary care is likely to cost much the same as employing a salaried GP according to currently available data. There is considerable variability of qualifications and experience of nurse practitioners, which suggests that skill-mix decisions should depend on the full range of roles and responsibilities rather than cost.

SUBMITTER: Hollinghurst S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1872064 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the cost of nurse practitioners and GPs in primary care: modelling economic data from randomised trials.

Hollinghurst Sandra S Horrocks Sue S Anderson Elizabeth E Salisbury Chris C

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 20060701 528

<h4>Background</h4>The role of nurse practitioners in primary care has recently expanded. While there are some outcome data available for different types of consultations, little is known about the relative cost.<h4>Aim</h4>To compare the cost of primary care provided by nurse practitioners with that of salaried GPs.<h4>Design of study</h4>Synthesis, modelling, and analysis of published data from the perspective of general practices and the NHS.<h4>Data sources</h4>Two published randomised contr ...[more]

PMID: 16834880

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIMS:To compare the clinical effectiveness and costs of minor injury services provided by nurse practitioners with minor injury care provided by an accident and emergency (A&E) department. METHODS:A three part prospective study in a city where an A&E department was closing and being replaced by a nurse led minor injury unit (MIU). The first part of the study took a sample of patients attending the A&E department. The second part of the study was a sample of patients from a nurse led MIU that had replaced the A&E department. In each of these samples the clinical effectiveness was judged by comparing the "gold standard" of a research assessment with the clinical assessment. Primary outcome measures were the number of errors in clinical assessment, treatment, and disposal. The third part of the study used routine data whose collection had been prospectively configured to assess the costs and cost consequences of both models of care. RESULTS:The minor injury unit produced a safe service where the total package of care was equal to or in some cases better than the A&E care. Significant process errors were made in 191 of 1447 (13.2%) patients treated by medical staff in the A&E department and 126 of 1313 (9.6%) of patients treated by nurse practitioners in the MIU. Very significant errors were rare (one error). Waiting times were much better at the MIU (mean MIU 19 minutes, A&E department 56.4 minutes). The revenue costs were greater in the MIU (MIU pound 41.1, A&E department pound 40.01) and there was a great difference in the rates of follow up and with the nurses referring 47% of patients for follow up and the A&E department referring only 27%. Thus the costs and cost consequences were greater for MIU care compared with A&E care (MIU pound 12.7 per minor injury case, A&E department pound 9.66 per minor injury case). CONCLUSION:A nurse practitioner minor injury service can provide a safe and effective service for the treatment of minor injury. However, the costs of such a service are greater and there seems to be an increased use of outpatient services.

Project description:ObjectiveTo undertake an economic evaluation of nurse telephone consultation using decision support software in comparison with usual general practice care provided by a general practice cooperative.DesignCost analysis from an NHS perspective using stochastic data from a randomised controlled trial.SettingGeneral practice cooperative with 55 general practitioners serving 97 000 registered patients in Wiltshire, England.SubjectsAll patients contacting the service, or about whom the service was contacted during the trial year (January 1997 to January 1998).Main outcome measuresCosts and savings to the NHS during the trial year.ResultsThe cost of providing nurse telephone consultation was 81 237 pound sterling per annum. This, however, determined a 94 422 pound sterling reduction of other costs for the NHS arising from reduced emergency admissions to hospital. Using point estimates for savings, the cost analysis, combined with the analysis of outcomes, showed a dominance situation for the intervention over general practice cooperative care alone. If a larger improvement in outcomes is assumed (upper 95% confidence limit) NHS savings increase to 123 824 pound sterling per annum. Savings of only 3728 pound sterling would, however, arise in a scenario where lower 95% confidence limits for outcome differences were observed. To break even, the intervention would have needed to save 138 emergency hospital admissions per year, around 90% of the effect achieved in the trial. Additional savings of 16 928 pound sterling for general practice arose from reduced travel to visit patients at home and fewer surgery appointments within three days of a call.ConclusionsNurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care may reduce NHS costs in the long term by reducing demand for emergency admission to hospital. General practitioners currently bear most of the cost of nurse telephone consultation and benefit least from the savings associated with it. This indicates that the service produces benefits in terms of service quality, which are beyond the reach of this cost analysis.

Project description:BackgroundThis integrative review synthesises research studies that have investigated the perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in primary health care. The aggregation of evidence on barriers and facilitators to working collaboratively and experiences about the processes of collaboration is of value to understand success factors and factors that impede collaborative working relationships.MethodsAn integrative review, which used systematic review processes, was undertaken to summarise qualitative and quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2012. Databases searched were the Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Informit and ProQuest. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Study findings were extracted relating to a) barriers and facilitators to collaborative working and b) views and experiences about the process of collaboration. The findings were narratively synthesised, supported by tabulation.Results27 studies conducted in seven different countries met the inclusion criteria. Content analysis identified a number of barriers and facilitators of collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners. By means of data comparison five themes were developed in relation to perceptions and understanding of collaboration. Nurse practitioners and medical practitioners have differing views on the essentials of collaboration and on supervision and autonomous nurse practitioner practice. Medical practitioners who have a working experience with NPs express more positive attitudes towards collaboration. Both professional groups report concerns and negative experiences with collaborative practice but also value certain advantages of collaboration.ConclusionsThe review shows that working in collaboration is a slow progression. Exposure to working together helps to overcome professional hurdles, dispel concerns and provide clarity around roles and the meaning of collaboration of NPs and MPs. Guidelines on liability and better funding strategies are necessary to facilitate collaborative practice whether barriers lie in individual behaviours or in broader policies.

Dataset Information

Comparing the cost of nurse practitioners and GPs in primary care: modelling economic data from randomised trials.

Background

Aim

Design of study

Data sources

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparing the cost of nurse practitioners and GPs in primary care: modelling economic data from randomised trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets