Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Martinez-Gonzalez NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4065389 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Martínez-González Nahara Anani NA Djalali Sima S Tandjung Ryan R Huber-Geismann Flore F Markun Stefan S Wensing Michel M Rosemann Thomas T

BMC health services research 20140512

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched OVID Medline and Embase, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, up to August 2012; selected and critically appraised pub ...[more]

PMID: 24884763

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe prevalence of burnout in intensive care unit (ICU) professionals is difficult to establish due to the variety of survey instruments used, the heterogeneity of the targeted population, the design of the studies, and the differences among countries regarding ICU organization.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the prevalence of high-level burnout in physicians and nurses working in adult ICUs, including only studies that use the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) as a tool to evaluate burnout and involving at least 3 different ICUs.ResultsTwenty-five studies with a combined population of 20,723 healthcare workers from adult ICUs satisfied the inclusion criteria. Combining 18 studies including 8187 ICU physicians, 3660 of them reported a high level of burnout (prevalence 0.41, range 0.15-0.71, 95% CI [0.33; 0.5], I2 97.6%, 95% CI [96.9%; 98.1%]). The heterogeneity can be at least in part explained by the definition of burnout used and the response rate as confirmed by the multivariable metaregression done. In contrast, there was no significant difference regarding other factors such as the study period (before or during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic), the income of the countries, or the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) index. Combining 20 studies including 12,536 ICU nurses, 6232 of nurses were reporting burnout (prevalence 0.44, range 0.14-0.74, [95% CI 0.34; 0.55], I2 98.6% 95% CI [98.4%; 98.9%]). The prevalence of high-level burnout in ICU nurses for studies performed during the COVID-19 pandemic was higher than that reported for studies performed before the COVID-19 pandemic (0.61 [95% CI, 0.46; 0.75] and 0.37 [95% CI, 0.26; 0.49] respectively, p = 0.003). As for physicians, the heterogeneity is at least in part explained by the definition used for burnout using the MBI but not by the number of participants. When compared, the prevalence of high-level burnout was not different between ICU physicians and ICU nurses. However, the proportion of ICU nurses with a high level of emotional exhaustion was higher than for ICU physicians (0.42 [95% CI, 0.37; 0.48] and 0.28 [0.2; 0.39], respectively, p = 0.022).ConclusionAccording to this meta-analysis, the prevalence of high-level burnout is higher than 40% in all ICU professionals. However, there is a great heterogeneity in the results. To evaluate and to compare preventive and therapeutic strategies, there is the need to use a consensual definition of burnout when using the MBI instrument.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medical-related professions are at high suicide risk. However, data are contradictory and comparisons were not made between gender, occupation and specialties, epochs of times. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on suicide risk among health-care workers. METHOD:The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct and Embase databases were searched without language restriction on April 2019, with the following keywords: suicide* AND (« health care worker* » OR physician* OR nurse*). When possible, we stratified results by gender, countries, time, and specialties. Estimates were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using stratified meta-analysis and meta-regression. Suicides, suicidal attempts, and suicidal ideation were retrieved from national or local specific registers or case records. In addition, suicide attempts and suicidal ideation were also retrieved from questionnaires (paper or internet). RESULTS:The overall SMR for suicide in physicians was 1.44 (95CI 1.16, 1.72) with an important heterogeneity (I2 = 93.9%, p<0.001). Female were at higher risk (SMR = 1.9; 95CI 1.49, 2.58; and ES = 0.67; 95CI 0.19, 1.14; p<0.001 compared to male). US physicians were at higher risk (ES = 1.34; 95CI 1.28, 1.55; p <0.001 vs Rest of the world). Suicide decreased over time, especially in Europe (ES = -0.18; 95CI -0.37, -0.01; p = 0.044). Some specialties might be at higher risk such as anesthesiologists, psychiatrists, general practitioners and general surgeons. There were 1.0% (95CI 1.0, 2.0; p<0.001) of suicide attempts and 17% (95CI 12, 21; p<0.001) of suicidal ideation in physicians. Insufficient data precluded meta-analysis on other health-care workers. CONCLUSION:Physicians are an at-risk profession of suicide, with women particularly at risk. The rate of suicide in physicians decreased over time, especially in Europe. The high prevalence of physicians who committed suicide attempt as well as those with suicidal ideation should benefits for preventive strategies at the workplace. Finally, the lack of data on other health-care workers suggest to implement studies investigating those occupations.

Project description:IntroductionPossible dementia is usually identified in primary care by general practitioners (GPs) who refer to specialists for diagnosis. Only two-thirds of dementia cases are currently recorded in primary care, so increasing the proportion of cases diagnosed is a strategic priority for the UK and internationally. Variables in the primary care record may indicate risk of developing dementia, and could be combined in a predictive model to help find patients who are missing a diagnosis. We conducted a meta-analysis to identify clinical entities with potential for use in such a predictive model for dementia in primary care.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science and primary care database bibliographies. We included cohort or case-control studies which used routinely collected primary care data, to measure the association between any clinical entity and dementia. Meta-analyses were performed to pool odds ratios. A sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of non-independence of cases between studies. From a sift of 3836 papers, 20 studies, all European, were eligible for inclusion, comprising >1 million patients. 75 clinical entities were assessed as risk factors for all cause dementia, Alzheimer's (AD) and Vascular dementia (VaD). Data included were unexpectedly heterogeneous, and assumptions were made about definitions of clinical entities and timing as these were not all well described. Meta-analysis showed that neuropsychiatric symptoms including depression, anxiety, and seizures, cognitive symptoms, and history of stroke, were positively associated with dementia. Cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, heart disease, dyslipidaemia and diabetes were positively associated with VaD and negatively with AD. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results.ConclusionsThese findings are of potential value in guiding feature selection for a risk prediction tool for dementia in primary care. Limitations include findings being UK-focussed. Further predictive entities ascertainable from primary care data, such as changes in consulting patterns, were absent from the literature and should also be explored in future studies.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, registered nurses (RNs) are increasingly working in primary care interdisciplinary teams. Although existing literature provides some information about the contributions of RNs towards outcomes of care, further evidence on RN workforce contributions, specifically towards patient-level outcomes, is needed. This study synthesized evidence regarding the effectiveness of RNs on patient outcomes in primary care.MethodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A comprehensive search of databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, Embase) was performed using applicable subject headings and keywords. Additional literature was identified through grey literature searches (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, MedNar, Google Scholar, websites, reference lists of included articles). Quantitative studies measuring the effectiveness of a RN-led intervention (i.e., any care/activity performed by a primary care RN) that reported related outcomes were included. Articles were screened independently by two researchers and assessed for bias using the Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken due to the heterogeneity in study designs, RN-led interventions, and outcome measures across included studies.ResultsForty-six patient outcomes were identified across 23 studies. Outcomes were categorized in accordance with the PaRIS Conceptual Framework (patient-reported experience measures, patient-reported outcome measures, health behaviours) and an additional category added by the research team (biomarkers). Primary care RN-led interventions resulted in improvements within each outcome category, specifically with respect to weight loss, pelvic floor muscle strength and endurance, blood pressure and glycemic control, exercise self-efficacy, social activity, improved diet and physical activity levels, and reduced tobacco use. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with RN-led care.ConclusionsThis review provides evidence regarding the effectiveness of RNs on patient outcomes in primary care, specifically with respect to satisfaction, enablement, quality of life, self-efficacy, and improvements in health behaviours. Ongoing evaluation that accounts for primary care RNs' unique scope of practice and emphasizes the patient experience is necessary to optimize the delivery of patient-centered primary care.Protocol registration idPROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. 2018. ID=CRD42 018090767 .

Project description:BackgroundInternationally, policy-makers and health administrators are seeking evidence to inform further integration and optimal utilization of registered nurses (RNs) within primary care teams. Although existing literature provides some information regarding RN contributions, further evidence on the impact of RNs towards quality and cost of care is necessary to demonstrate the contribution of this role on health system outcomes. In this study we synthesize international evidence on the effectiveness of RNs on care delivery and system-level outcomes in primary care.MethodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Searches were conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, and Embase for published literature and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses and MedNar for unpublished literature between 2019 and 2022 using relevant subject headings and keywords. Additional literature was identified through Google Scholar, websites, and reference lists of included articles. Studies were included if they measured effectiveness of a RN-led intervention (i.e., any care/activity performed by a primary care RN within the context of an independent or interdependent role) and reported outcomes of these interventions. Included studies were published in English; no date or location restrictions were applied. Risk of bias was assessed using the Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs tool. Due to the heterogeneity of included studies, a narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsSeventeen articles were eligible for inclusion, with 11 examining system outcomes (e.g., cost, workload) and 15 reporting on outcomes related to care delivery (e.g., illness management, quality of smoking cessation support). The studies suggest that RN-led care may have an impact on outcomes, specifically in relation to the provision of medication management, patient triage, chronic disease management, sexual health, routine preventative care, health promotion/education, and self-management interventions (e.g. smoking cessation support).ConclusionsThe findings suggest that primary care RNs impact the delivery of quality primary care, and that RN-led care may complement and potentially enhance primary care delivered by other primary care providers. Ongoing evaluation in this area is important to further refine nursing scope of practice policy, determine the impact of RN-led care on outcomes, and inform improvements to primary care infrastructure and systems management to meet care needs.Protocol registration idPROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2018. ID= CRD42018090767 .

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets