Dataset Information

Task shifting from general practitioners to practice assistants and nurses in primary care: a cross-sectional survey in 34 countries

ABSTRACT:

Aim:

To describe variation in task shifting from general practitioners (GPs) to practice assistants/nurses in 34 countries, and to explain differences by analysing associations with characteristics of the GPs, their practices and features of the health care systems.

Background:

Redistribution of tasks and responsibilities in primary care are driven by changes in demand for care, such as the growing number of patients with chronic conditions, and workforce developments, including staff shortage. The need to manage an expanding range of services has led to adaptations in the skill mix of primary care teams. However, these developments are hampered by barriers between professional domains, which can be rigid as a result of strict regulation, traditional attitudes and lack of trust.

Methods:

Data were collected between 2011 and 2013 through a cross-sectional survey among approximately 7200 GPs in 34 countries. The dependent variable ‘task shifting’ is measured through a composite score of GPs’ self-reported shifting of tasks. Independent variables at GP and practice level are: innovativeness; part-time working; availability of staff; location and population of the practice. Country-level independent variables are: institutional development of primary care; demand for and supply of care; nurse prescribing as an indicator for professional boundaries; professionalisation of practice assistants/nurses (indicated by professional training, professional associations and journals). Multilevel analysis is used to account for the clustering of GPs in countries.

Findings:

Countries vary in the degree of task shifting by GPs. Regarding GP and practice characteristics, use of electronic health record applications (as an indicator for innovativeness) and age of the GPs are significantly related to task shifting. These variables explain only little variance at the level of GPs. Two country variables are positively related to task shifting: nurse prescribing and professionalisation of primary care nursing. Professionalisation has the strongest relationship, explaining 21% of the country variation.

SUBMITTER: Groenewegen P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8581458 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo describe variation in task shifting from GPs to practice assistants/nurses in 34 countries and to explain differences by analysing associations with characteristics of the GPs and their practices and features of the health care systems.BackgroundRedistribution of tasks and responsibilities in primary care are driven by changes in demand, such as the growing number of patients with chronic conditions, and workforce developments, including staff shortage. The need to manage an expanding range of services has led to adaptations in the skill-mix of primary care teams. These developments are hampered by barriers between professional domains.MethodsData were collected between 2011 and 2013 through a cross-sectional survey among approximately 7,200 general practitioners (GPs) in 34 countries. Task shifting is measured through a composite score of GPs' self-reported shifting of tasks. Independent variables at GP and practice level are as follows: innovativeness; part-time working; availability of staff; location and population of the practice. Country-level independent variables are as follows: demand for and supply of care, nurse prescribing, and professionalisation of practice assistants/nurses. Multilevel analysis is used to account for clustering of GPs in countries.FindingsCountries vary in the degree of task shifting. Regarding GP and practice characteristics, use of electronic health records and availability of support staff in the practice are positively associated with task shifting and GPs' working hours negatively, in line with our hypotheses. Age of the GPs is, contrary to our hypothesis, positively related to task shifting. These variables explain 11% of the variance at GP level. Two country variables are related to task shifting: a lower percentage of practices without support staff in a country and nurse prescribing rights coincide with more task shifting. The percentage of practices without support staff has the strongest relationship, explaining 73% of the country variation.

Project description:BackgroundJob satisfaction of general practitioners (GPs) is important because of the consequences of low satisfaction for GPs, their patients and the health system, such as higher turnover, health problems for the physicians themselves, less satisfied patients, poor clinical outcomes and suboptimal health care delivery. In this study, we aim to explain differences in the job satisfaction of GPs within and between countries.MethodsWe performed a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data, collected between 2010 and 2012 on 7379 GPs in 34 (mostly European) countries, as well as data on country and health system characteristics from public databases. Job satisfaction is measured through a composite score of six items about self-reported job experience. Operationalisation of the theoretical constructs includes variables, such as the range of services GPs provide, working hours, employment status, and feedback from colleagues. Data were analysed using linear multilevel regression analysis, with countries and GPs as levels. We developed hypotheses on the basis of the Social Production Function Theory, assuming that GPs 'produce' job satisfaction through stimulating work that provides a certain level of comfort, adds to their social status and provides behavioural confirmation.ResultsJob satisfaction varies between GPs and countries, with high satisfaction in Denmark and Canada (on average 2.97 and 2.77 on a scale from 1-4, respectively) and low job satisfaction in Spain (mean 2.15) and Hungary (mean 2.17). One-third of the total variance is situated on the country level, indicating large differences between countries, and countries with a higher GDP per capita have more satisfied GPs. Health system characteristics are not related to GP job satisfaction. At the GP and practice level, performing technical procedures and providing preventive care, feedback from colleagues, and patient satisfaction are positively related to GP job satisfaction and working more hours is negatively related GP job satisfaction.ConclusionOverall and in terms of our theoretical approach, we found that GPs are able to 'produce' work-related well-being through activities and resources related to stimulation, comfort and behavioural confirmation, but not to status.

Project description:BACKGROUND:More and more older adults desire to and are enabled to grow old in their own home, regardless of their physical and mental capabilities. This change, together with the growing number of older adults, increases the demand for general practitioners (GPs). However, care for older people lacks prestige among medical students and few medical students are interested in a career in care for older people. Innovative solutions are needed to reduce the demand for GPs, to guarantee quality of healthcare and to contain costs. A solution might be found in skill mix change by introducing nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs) or registered nurses (RNs). The aim of this study was to describe how skill mix change is organised in daily practice, what influences it and what the effects are of introducing NPs, PAs or RNs into primary healthcare for older people. METHODS:In total, 34 care providers working in primary healthcare in the Netherlands were interviewed: GPs (n = 9), NPs (n = 10), PAs (n = 5) and RNs (n = 10). Five focus groups and 14 individual interviews were conducted. Analysis consisted of open coding, creating categories and abstraction. RESULTS:In most cases, healthcare for older people was only a small part of the tasks of NPs, PAs and RNs; they did not solely focus on older people. The tasks they performed and their responsibilities in healthcare for older people differed between, as well as within, professions. Although the interviewees debated the usefulness of proactive structural screening on frailty in the older population, when implemented, it was also unclear who should perform the geriatric assessment. Interviewees considered NPs, PAs and RNs an added value, and it was stated that the role of the GP changed with the introduction of NPs, PAs or RNs. CONCLUSIONS:The roles and responsibilities of NPs, PAs and RNs for the care of older people living at home are still not established. Nonetheless, these examples show the potential of these professionals. The establishment of a clear vision on primary healthcare for older people, including the organisation of proactive healthcare, is necessary to optimise the impact of skill mix change.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.