Dataset Information

Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting "same day" consultations in primary care.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To ascertain any differences between care from nurse practitioners and that from general practitioners for patients seeking "same day" consultations in primary care. DESIGN:Randomised controlled trial with patients allocated by one of two randomisation schemes (by day or within day). SETTING:10 general practices in south Wales and south west England. SUBJECTS:1368 patients requesting same day consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Patient satisfaction, resolution of symptoms and concerns, care provided (prescriptions, investigations, referrals, recall, and length of consultation), information provided to patients, and patients' intentions for seeking care in the future. RESULTS:Generally patients consulting nurse practitioners were significantly more satisfied with their care, although for adults this difference was not observed in all practices. For children, the mean difference between general and nurse practitioner in percentage satisfaction score was -4.8 (95% confidence interval -6.8 to -2.8), and for adults the differences ranged from -8.8 (-13.6 to -3.9) to 3.8 (-3.3 to 10.8) across the practices. Resolution of symptoms and concerns did not differ between the two groups (odds ratio 1.2 (95% confidence interval 0.8 to 1.8) for symptoms and 1.03 (0.8 to 1.4) for concerns). The number of prescriptions issued, investigations ordered, referrals to secondary care, and reattendances were similar between the two groups. However, patients managed by nurse practitioners reported receiving significantly more information about their illnesses and, in all but one practice, their consultations were significantly longer. CONCLUSION:This study supports the wider acceptance of the role of nurse practitioners in providing care to patients requesting same day consultations.

SUBMITTER: Kinnersley P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC27347 | biostudies-literature | 2000 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting "same day" consultations in primary care.

Kinnersley P P Anderson E E Parry K K Clement J J Archard L L Turton P P Stainthorpe A A Fraser A A Butler C C CC Rogers C C

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20000401 7241

<h4>Objective</h4>To ascertain any differences between care from nurse practitioners and that from general practitioners for patients seeking "same day" consultations in primary care.<h4>Design</h4>Randomised controlled trial with patients allocated by one of two randomisation schemes (by day or within day).<h4>Setting</h4>10 general practices in south Wales and south west England.<h4>Subjects</h4>1368 patients requesting same day consultations.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Patient satisfaction, ...[more]

PMID: 10764366

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care systems around the world have implemented nurse practitioners (NPs) to ensure access to high quality care in times of general practitioner (GP) shortages and changing health care needs of a multimorbid, ageing population. In Switzerland, NPs are currently being introduced, and their exact role is yet to be determined. The aim of this study was to get insight into patient characteristics and services provided in NP consultations compared to GP consultations in Swiss primary care. METHODS:This case study used retrospective observational data from electronic medical records of a family practice with one NP and two GPs. Data on patient-provider encounters were collected between August 2017 and December 2018. We used logistic regression to assess associations between the assignment of the patients to the NP or GP and patient characteristics and delivered services respectively. RESULTS:Data from 5210 patients participating in 27,811 consultations were analyzed. The average patient age was 44.3?years (SD 22.6), 47.1% of the patients were female and 19.4% multimorbid. 1613 (5.8%) consultations were with the NP, and 26,198 (94.2%) with the two GPs. Patients in NP consultations were more often aged 85+ (OR 3.43; 95%-CI 2.70-4.36), multimorbid (OR 1.37; 95%-CI 1.24-1.51; p?<?0.001) and polypharmaceutical (OR 1.28; 95%-CI 1.15-1.42; p?<?0.001) in comparison to GP consultations. In NP consultations, vital signs (OR 3.05; 95%-CI 2.72-3.42; p?<?0.001) and anthropometric data (OR 1.33; 95%-CI 1.09-1.63; p 0.005) were measured more frequently, and lab tests (OR 1.16; 95%-CI 1.04-1.30; p 0.008) were ordered more often compared to GP consultations, independent of patient characteristics. By contrast, medications (OR 0.35; 95%-CI 0.30-0.41; p?<?0.001) were prescribed or changed less frequently in NP consultations. CONCLUSIONS:Quantitative data from pilot projects provide valuable insights into NP tasks and activities in Swiss primary care. Our results provide first indications that NPs might have a focus on and could offer care to the growing number of multimorbid, polypharmaceutical elderly in Swiss primary care.

Project description:ObjectivesReminders in primary care administrative systems aim to help clinicians provide evidence-based care, prescribe safely and save money. However, increased use of reminders can lead to alert fatigue. Our study aimed to assess general practitioners' (GPs) and nurse practitioners' (NPs) views on electronic reminders in primary care.DesignA qualitative analysis using semistructured interviews.Setting and participantsFifteen GPs and NP based in general practices located in North-West London and Yorkshire, England.MethodsWe collected data on participants' views on: (1) perceptions of the value of information provided; (2) reminder-related behaviours and (3) how to improve reminders. We carried out a thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants were familiar with reminders in their clinical systems and felt many were important to support their clinical work. However, participants reported, on average, 70% of reminders were ignored. Four major themes emerged: (1) reaction to a reminder, which was mixed and varied by situation. (2) Factors influencing the decision to act on reminders, often related to experience, consultation styles and interests of participants. Time constraints, alert design, inappropriate presentation and litigation were also factors. (3) Negative consequences of using reminders were increased workload or costs and compromising GP and NPs behaviour. (4) Factors relating to improving users' engagement with reminders were prevention of unnecessary reminders through data linkage across healthcare administrative systems or the development of more intelligent algorithms. Participants felt training was vital to effectively manage reminders.ConclusionsGPs and NPs believe reminders are useful in supporting the provision of good quality patient care. Improving GPs and NPs' engagement with reminders centres on further developing their relevance to their clinical practice, which is personalised, considers cognitive workflow and suppresses inappropriate presentation.

Project description:BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease, causing pain and functional impairments. According to international guidelines, exercise therapy has a short-term effect in reducing pain/functional impairments in knee OA and is therefore also generally recommended for hip OA. Because of its high prevalence and clinical implications, OA is associated with considerable (healthcare) costs. However, studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of common exercise therapy in hip OA are lacking. Therefore, this randomised controlled trial is designed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in conjunction with the general practitioner's (GP) care, compared to GP care alone, for patients with hip OA.Methods/designPatients aged ? 45 years with OA of the hip, who consulted the GP during the past year for hip complaints and who comply with the American College of Rheumatology criteria, are included. Patients are randomly assigned to either exercise therapy in addition to GP care, or to GP care alone. Exercise therapy consists of (maximally) 12 treatment sessions with a physiotherapist, and home exercises. These are followed by three additional treatment sessions in the 5th, 7th and 9th month after the first treatment session. GP care consists of usual care for hip OA, such as general advice or prescribing pain medication. Primary outcomes are hip pain and hip-related activity limitations (measured with the Hip disability Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [HOOS]), direct costs, and productivity costs (measured with the PROductivity and DISease Questionnaire). These parameters are measured at baseline, at 6 weeks, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. To detect a 25% clinical difference in the HOOS pain score, with a power of 80% and an alpha 5%, 210 patients are required. Data are analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Effectiveness is evaluated using linear regression models with repeated measurements. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and an incremental cost-utility analysis will also be performed.DiscussionThe results of this trial will provide insight into the cost-effectiveness of adding exercise therapy to GPs' care in the treatment of OA of the hip. This trial is registered in the Dutch trial registry http://www.trialregister.nl: trial number NTR1462.

Project description:IntroductionOlder patients raise therapeutic challenges, because they constitute a heterogeneous population with multimorbidity. To appraise this complexity, geriatricians have developed a multidimensional comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), which may be difficult to apply in primary care settings. Our primary objective was to compare the effect on morbimortality of usual care compared with two complex interventions combining educational seminars about CGA: a dedicated geriatric hotline for general practitioners (GPs) and CGA by trained nurses or GPs.Methods and analysisThe Clinical Epidemiology and Ageing study is an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, three-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing two intervention groups and one control group. Patients must be 70 years or older with a long-term illness or with unscheduled hospitalisation in the past 3 months (750 patients planned). This study involves volunteering GPs practising in French primary care centres, with randomisation at the practice level. The multifaceted interventions for interventional arms comprise an educational interactive multiprofessional seminar for GPs and nurses, a geriatric hotline dedicated to GPs in case of difficulties and the performance of a CGA updated to primary care. The CGA is systematically performed by a nurse in arm 1 but is GP-led on a case-by-case basis in arm 2. The primary endpoint is a composite criterion comprising overall death, unscheduled hospitalisations, emergency admissions and institutionalisation within 12 months after inclusion. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed using mixed-effects logistic regression models, with adjustment for potential confounders.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by an appropriate ethics committee (CPP Ile-de-France IV, Paris, France, approval April 2015;15 664). This study is conducted according to principles of good clinical practice in the context of current care and will provide useful knowledge on the clinical benefits achievable by CGA in primary care.Trial registration numberNCT02664454; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting "same day" consultations in primary care.

Publications

Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting "same day" consultations in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets