Dataset Information

Task shifting in primary care to tackle healthcare worker shortages: An umbrella review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Task shifting is an approach to help address the shortage of healthcare workers through reallocating human resources but its impact on primary care is unclear.

Objectives

To provide an overview of reviews describing task shifts from physicians to allied healthcare workers in primary care and its impact on clinical outcomes.

Methods

Six electronic databases were searched up to 15 December 2020, to identify reviews describing task shifting in primary care. Two reviewers independently screened the references for relevant studies, extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR-2.

Results

Twenty-one reviews that described task shifting in primary care were included. Task shifted include provision of care for people with chronic conditions, medication prescribing, and health education. We found that task shifting could potentially improve several health outcomes such as blood pressure, HbA1c, and mental health while achieving cost savings. Key elements for successful implementation of task shifting include collaboration among all parties, a system for coordinated care, provider empowerment, patient preference, shared decision making, training and competency, supportive organisation system, clear process outcome, and financing.

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that allied healthcare workers such as pharmacists and nurses can potentially undertake substantially expanded roles to support physicians in primary care in response to the changing health service demand. Tasks include providing care to patients, independent prescribing, counselling and education, with comparable quality of care.

SUBMITTER: Leong SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8330741 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA growing global shortage of health workers is limiting access to health care, especially in resource-limited countries. Family participation in hospital care could enhance care while tackling health worker shortages. With the same resources, it might deliver additional and more personalised care. This review assessed the effect and safety of family participation interventions in the care of hospitalised adults in resource-limited settings and, ultimately, if it is a viable strategy to tackle health worker shortages.MethodsFor this systematic review, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Global Health Library were searched from inception till April 7, 2022. Clinical studies were included if they described a family participation intervention for hospitalised adults, were performed in a low- or middle-income country and reported on a patient-related outcome. Data were collected on patient, family, staff and health service-related outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROB2 and ROBINS-I tool.ResultsFrom 4444 studies, six were included for narrative synthesis, with a total of 1794 participants. Four studies were performed in Asia and two in Africa; all were published between 2017 and 2022. In-hospital family participation interventions aimed at medication administration and adherence, delirium prevention, and palliative cancer care were successful in significantly improving patient outcomes. Involving family in post-stroke rehabilitation interventions showed no significant effect on mortality and long-term disability. Few data were reported on participating family members' outcomes or hospital staffing issues. None of the included studies showed harm from family participation.ConclusionsThe limited data suggest that family participation can be effective and safe in specific contexts. However, more research is needed to determine the effect of family participation and justify further implementation. Family participation research for enhancing care while tackling health worker shortages should be a collaborative priority of researchers, health care professionals, funding agencies and policymakers.RegistrationPROSPERO registration No. CRD42020205878.

Project description:Task shifting (TS) is the redistribution of healthcare services from specialised to less-qualified providers. Need for TS was intensified during COVID-19. We explore what impact TS had on service delivery during the pandemic and examine how the pandemic affected TS strategies globally. We searched five databases in October 2022, namely Medline, CINAHL Plus, Elsevier, Global Health and Google Scholar. 35 citations were selected following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We analysed data thematically and utilised the WHO health systems framework and emergent themes to frame findings. We uncovered instances of TS in countries across all income levels. 63% (n = 22) of the articles discussed the impact of TS on healthcare services. These encompassed services related to mental healthcare, HIV, sexual and reproductive health, nutrition and rheumatoid diseases. The remaining 37% (n = 13) focused on how the pandemic altered strategies for TS, particularly in services related to mental healthcare, HIV, hypertension, diabetes and emergency care. We also found that studies differed in how they reported TS, with majority using terms "task shifting", followed by "task sharing", "task shifting and sharing" and "task delegation". Our analysis demonstrates that TS had a substantial impact across healthcare systems. Modifying roles through training and collaboration strengthened workforce and enhanced diagnostic services. Strategic leadership played a crucial role in the process. More research on the financial aspects of TS during pandemics is required. Stakeholders generally accepted TS, but transferring staff between healthcare programs caused unintended disruptions. The pandemic reshaped TS, moving training, patient care and consultations to digital platforms. Virtual interventions showed promise, but digital access remained a challenge. Healthcare organisations adapted by modifying procedures, pathways and staff precautions. We recommend refining strategies for TS, and expanding on it to address workforce shortages, improve access, and enhance services, not only during crises but also beyond.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician-nurse task shifting in primary care appeals greatly to health policymakers. It promises to address workforce shortages and demands of high-quality, affordable care in the healthcare systems of many countries. This systematic review was conducted to assess the evidence about physician-nurse task shifting in primary care in relation to the course of disease and nurses' roles.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, up to August 2012, and the reference list of included studies and relevant reviews. All searches were updated in February 2014. We selected and critically appraised published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).ResultsTwelve RCTs comprising 22,617 randomized patients conducted mainly in Europe met the inclusion criteria. Nurse-led care was delivered mainly by nurse practitioners following structured protocols and validated instruments in most studies. Twenty-five unique disease-specific measures of the course of disease were reported in the 12 RCTs. While most (84 %) study estimates showed no significant differences between nurse-led care and physician-led care, nurses achieved better outcomes in the secondary prevention of heart disease and a greater positive effect in managing dyspepsia and at lowering cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients. The studies were generally small, of varying follow-up episodes and were at risk of biases. Descriptive details about roles, qualifications or interventions were also incomplete or not reported.ConclusionTrained nurses may have the ability to achieve outcome results that are at least similar to physicians' for managing the course of disease, when following structured protocols and validated instruments. The evidence, however, is limited by a small number of studies reporting a broad range of disease-specific outcomes; low reporting standards of interventions, roles and clinicians' characteristics, skills and qualifications; and the quality of studies. More rigorous studies using validated tools could clarify these findings.

Project description:Shortages of human resources for health (HRH) have severely hampered the rollout of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in sub-Saharan Africa. Current rollout models are hospital- and physician-intensive. Task shifting, or delegating tasks performed by physicians to staff with lower-level qualifications, is considered a means of expanding rollout in resource-poor or HRH-limited settings.We conducted a systematic literature review. Medline, the Cochrane library, the Social Science Citation Index, and the South African National Health Research Database were searched with the following terms: task shift*, balance of care, non-physician clinicians, substitute health care worker, community care givers, primary healthcare teams, cadres, and nurs* HIV. We mined bibliographies and corresponded with authors for further results. Grey literature was searched online, and conference proceedings searched for abstracts.We found 2960 articles, of which 84 were included in the core review. 51 reported outcomes, including research from 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The most common intervention studied was the delegation of tasks (especially initiating and monitoring HAART) from doctors to nurses and other non-physician clinicians. Five studies showed increased access to HAART through expanded clinical capacity; two concluded task shifting is cost effective; 9 showed staff equal or better quality of care; studies on non-physician clinician agreement with physician decisions was mixed, with the majority showing good agreement.Task shifting is an effective strategy for addressing shortages of HRH in HIV treatment and care. Task shifting offers high-quality, cost-effective care to more patients than a physician-centered model. The main challenges to implementation include adequate and sustainable training, support and pay for staff in new roles, the integration of new members into healthcare teams, and the compliance of regulatory bodies. Task shifting should be considered for careful implementation where HRH shortages threaten rollout programmes.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To estimate the transferability of processes of care from general practitioners (GPs) to allied healthcare professionals and the determinants of such transferability. DESIGN:French national cross-sectional multicentre study SETTING: 128 family practices providing supervised training for residents in general practice. PARTICIPANTS:All patients consulting with their GP over a total number of 20 days (ie, 1?day a week from December 2011 to April 2012). Encounters where type 2 diabetes was one of the managed health problems were selected for analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Processes that were associated with specific health problems were collected by 54 residents. Potential process transferability was the main outcome assessed, as well as the professionals involved in the collaboration and the eventual conditions associated with transfer. RESULTS:From 8572 processes of care that concerned 1088 encounters of patients with diabetes, 21.9% (95% CI 21.1% to 22.8%) were considered eligible for transfer from GPs to allied healthcare professionals (78.1% to nurses, 36.7% to pharmacists). Processes were transferable with condition(s) for 70.6% (ie, a protocol, shared record or supervision). The most transferable processes concerned health maintenance (32.1%) and cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension (28.7%), dyslipidaemia (25.3%) and diabetes (24.3%)). Multivariate analysis showed that educational processes or a long-term condition status were associated with increased transferability (OR 3.26?and 1.47, respectively), whereas patients with higher intellectual occupations or those with two or more associated health problems were associated with lower transferability (OR 0.33?and 0.81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:A significant part of GP activity relating to patients with multimorbidity including type 2 diabetes could be transferred to allied healthcare professionals, mainly on prevention and global education to cardiovascular risk factors. The organisational and finance conditions of team work as views of patients and healthcare professionals must be explored before implementation in primary care.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a high prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions in primary care. This is associated with more frequent adverse events, lower quality of life and more frequent visits to hospital accident & emergency departments. The aim of the present study is to summarise available evidence on the effectiveness of deprescription interventions in primary care, and to describe the barriers and enablers of the process from the point of view of patients and healthcare professionals.MethodsWe designed an umbrella review which includes nine systematic reviews. More than 50% of included studies were performed with adults in primary care. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and analysis.ResultsIn considering studies of the effectiveness of interventions, it can be observed that the educational component of deprescription procedures is a key factor, whilst procedures tailored towards the patient's situation offer better results. With regards to studies involving healthcare professionals, the main explored areas were the balance between risks and benefits, and the need to improve communication with patients as well as other colleagues involved in patient care. Amongst the identified barriers we found lack of time, inability to access all information, being stuck in a routine, resistance to change and a lack of willingness to question the prescription decisions made by healthcare colleagues. With regards to patients, it is clear that they have worries and doubts. In order to overcome these issues, a good relationship with healthcare professionals and receipt of their support is required during the process.ConclusionsOptimizing medication through targeted deprescribing is an important part of managing chronic conditions, avoiding adverse effects and improving outcomes. The majority of deprescription interventions in primary care are effective. Good communication between healthcare professionals is a key element for success in the deprescription process.

Project description:BackgroundWhile there is clear evidence that nurses can play a significant role in responding to the needs of populations with chronic conditions, there is a lack of consistency between and within primary care settings in the implementation of nursing processes for chronic disease management. Previous reviews have focused either on a specific model of care, populations with a single health condition, or a specific type of nurses. Since primary care nurses are involved in a wide range of services, a comprehensive perspective of effective nursing processes across primary care settings and chronic health conditions could allow for a better understanding of how to support them in a broader way across the primary care continuum. This systematic overview aims to provide a picture of the nursing processes and their characteristics in chronic disease management as reported in empirical studies, using the Chronic Care Model (CCM) conceptual approach.MethodsWe conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews published between 2005 and 2021 based on the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 tool.ResultsTwenty-six systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included, covering 394 primary studies. The methodological quality of most reviews was moderate. Self-care support processes show the most consistent positive outcomes across different conditions and primary care settings. Case management and nurse-led care show inconsistent outcomes. Most reviews report on the clinical components of the Chronic Care Model, with little mention of the decision support and clinical information systems components.ConclusionsPlacing greater emphasis on decision support and clinical information systems could improve the implementation of nursing processes. While the need for an interdisciplinary approach to primary care is widely promoted, it is important that this approach not be viewed solely from a clinical perspective. The organization of care and resources need to be designed to support contributions from all providers to optimize the full range of services available to patients with chronic conditions.Prospero registrationCRD42021220004.