Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care Laurant, Miranda; van der Biezen, Mieke; Wijers, Nancy ...
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
07/2018, Volume:
2019, Issue:
2
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Background
Current and expected problems such as ageing, increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi‐morbidity, increased emphasis on healthy lifestyle and prevention, and substitution for ...care from hospitals by care provided in the community encourage countries worldwide to develop new models of primary care delivery. Owing to the fact that many tasks do not necessarily require the knowledge and skills of a doctor, interest in using nurses to expand the capacity of the primary care workforce is increasing. Substitution of nurses for doctors is one strategy used to improve access, efficiency, and quality of care. This is the first update of the Cochrane review published in 2005.
Objectives
Our aim was to investigate the impact of nurses working as substitutes for primary care doctors on:
• patient outcomes;
• processes of care; and
• utilisation, including volume and cost.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of the Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com), as well as MEDLINE, Ovid, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and EbscoHost (searched 20.01.2015). We searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (21.02.2017), and we searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries (21.02.2017). We did a cited reference search for relevant studies (searched 27.01 2015) and checked reference lists of all included studies. We reran slightly revised strategies, limited to publication years between 2015 and 2017, for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and CINAHL, in March 2017, and we have added one trial to ‘Studies awaiting classification’.
Selection criteria
Randomised trials evaluating the outcomes of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. The review is limited to primary healthcare services that provide first contact and ongoing care for patients with all types of health problems, excluding mental health problems. Studies which evaluated nurses supplementing the work of primary care doctors were excluded.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies. When feasible, we combined study results and determined an overall estimate of the effect. We evaluated other outcomes by completing a structured synthesis.
Main results
For this review, we identified 18 randomised trials evaluating the impact of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. One study was conducted in a middle‐income country, and all other studies in high‐income countries. The nursing level was often unclear or varied between and even within studies. The studies looked at nurses involved in first contact care (including urgent care), ongoing care for physical complaints, and follow‐up of patients with a particular chronic conditions such as diabetes. In many of the studies, nurses could get additional support or advice from a doctor. Nurse‐doctor substitution for preventive services and health education in primary care has been less well studied.
Study findings suggest that care delivered by nurses, compared to care delivered by doctors, probably generates similar or better health outcomes for a broad range of patient conditions (low‐ or moderate‐certainty evidence):
• Nurse‐led primary care may lead to slightly fewer deaths among certain groups of patients, compared to doctor‐led care. However, the results vary and it is possible that nurse‐led primary care makes little or no difference to the number of deaths (low‐certainty evidence).
• Blood pressure outcomes are probably slightly improved in nurse‐led primary care. Other clinical or health status outcomes are probably similar (moderate‐certainty evidence).
• Patient satisfaction is probably slightly higher in nurse‐led primary care (moderate‐certainty evidence). Quality of life may be slightly higher (low‐certainty evidence).
We are uncertain of the effects of nurse‐led care on process of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low.
The effect of nurse‐led care on utilisation of care is mixed and depends on the type of outcome. Consultations are probably longer in nurse‐led primary care (moderate‐certainty evidence), and numbers of attended return visits are slightly higher for nurses than for doctors (high‐certainty evidence). We found little or no difference between nurses and doctors in the number of prescriptions and attendance at accident and emergency units (high‐certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the number of tests and investigations, hospital referrals and hospital admissions between nurses and doctors (low‐certainty evidence).
We are uncertain of the effects of nurse‐led care on the costs of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low.
Authors' conclusions
This review shows that for some ongoing and urgent physical complaints and for chronic conditions, trained nurses, such as nurse practitioners, practice nurses, and registered nurses, probably provide equal or possibly even better quality of care compared to primary care doctors, and probably achieve equal or better health outcomes for patients. Nurses probably achieve higher levels of patient satisfaction, compared to primary care doctors. Furthermore, consultation length is probably longer when nurses deliver care and the frequency of attended return visits is probably slightly higher for nurses, compared to doctors. Other utilisation outcomes are probably the same. The effects of nurse‐led care on process of care and the costs of care are uncertain, and we also cannot ascertain what level of nursing education leads to the best outcomes when nurses are substituted for doctors.
Background
Excessive drinking is a significant cause of mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. Brief interventions aim to reduce alcohol consumption and related harm in hazardous ...and harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking help for alcohol problems. Interventions usually take the form of a conversation with a primary care provider and may include feedback on the person's alcohol use, information about potential harms and benefits of reducing intake, and advice on how to reduce consumption. Discussion informs the development of a personal plan to help reduce consumption. Brief interventions can also include behaviour change or motivationally‐focused counselling.
This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007.
Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in hazardous or harmful drinkers in general practice or emergency care settings.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and 12 other bibliographic databases to September 2017. We searched Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (to December 2003, after which the database was discontinued), trials registries, and websites. We carried out handsearching and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.
Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of brief interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people attending general practice, emergency care or other primary care settings for reasons other than alcohol treatment. The comparison group was no or minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. 'Brief intervention' was defined as a conversation comprising five or fewer sessions of brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling and a total duration of less than 60 minutes. Any more was considered an extended intervention. Digital interventions were not included in this review.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We carried out subgroup analyses where possible to investigate the impact of factors such as gender, age, setting (general practice versus emergency care), treatment exposure and baseline consumption.
Main results
We included 69 studies that randomised a total of 33,642 participants. Of these, 42 studies were added for this update (24,057 participants). Most interventions were delivered in general practice (38 studies, 55%) or emergency care (27 studies, 39%) settings. Most studies (61 studies, 88%) compared brief intervention to minimal or no intervention. Extended interventions were compared with brief (4 studies, 6%), minimal or no intervention (7 studies, 10%). Few studies targeted particular age groups: adolescents or young adults (6 studies, 9%) and older adults (4 studies, 6%). Mean baseline alcohol consumption was 244 g/week (30.5 standard UK units) among the studies that reported these data. Main sources of bias were attrition and lack of provider or participant blinding. The primary meta‐analysis included 34 studies (15,197 participants) and provided moderate‐quality evidence that participants who received brief intervention consumed less alcohol than minimal or no intervention participants after one year (mean difference (MD) ‐20 g/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐28 to ‐12). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies (I² = 73%). A subgroup analysis by gender demonstrated that both men and women reduced alcohol consumption after receiving a brief intervention.
We found moderate‐quality evidence that brief alcohol interventions have little impact on frequency of binges per week (MD ‐0.08, 95% CI ‐0.14 to ‐0.02; 15 studies, 6946 participants); drinking days per week (MD ‐0.13, 95% CI ‐0.23 to ‐0.04; 11 studies, 5469 participants); or drinking intensity (‐0.2 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐3.1 to 2.7; 10 studies, 3128 participants).
We found moderate‐quality evidence of little difference in quantity of alcohol consumed when extended and no or minimal interventions were compared (‐20 g/week, 95% CI ‐40 to 1; 6 studies, 1296 participants). There was little difference in binges per week (‐0.08, 95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.12; 2 studies, 456 participants; moderate‐quality evidence) or difference in days drinking per week (‐0.45, 95% CI ‐0.81 to ‐0.09; 2 studies, 319 participants; moderate‐quality evidence). Extended versus no or minimal intervention provided little impact on drinking intensity (9 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐26 to 9; 1 study, 158 participants; low‐quality evidence).
Extended intervention had no greater impact than brief intervention on alcohol consumption, although findings were imprecise (MD 2 g/week, 95% CI ‐42 to 45; 3 studies, 552 participants; low‐quality evidence). Numbers of binges were not reported for this comparison, but one trial suggested a possible drop in days drinking per week (‐0.5, 95% CI ‐1.2 to 0.2; 147 participants; low‐quality evidence). Results from this trial also suggested very little impact on drinking intensity (‐1.7 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐18.9 to 15.5; 147 participants; very low‐quality evidence).
Only five studies reported adverse effects (very low‐quality evidence). No participants experienced any adverse effects in two studies; one study reported that the intervention increased binge drinking for women and two studies reported adverse events related to driving outcomes but concluded they were equivalent in both study arms.
Sources of funding were reported by 67 studies (87%). With two exceptions, studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment.
Authors' conclusions
We found moderate‐quality evidence that brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in hazardous and harmful drinkers compared to minimal or no intervention. Longer counselling duration probably has little additional effect. Future studies should focus on identifying the components of interventions which are most closely associated with effectiveness.
Background
The primary care specialist interface is a key organisational feature of many health care systems. Patients are referred to specialist care when investigation or therapeutic options are ...exhausted in primary care and more specialised care is needed. Referral has considerable implications for patients, the health care system and health care costs. There is considerable evidence that the referral processes can be improved.
Objectives
To estimate the effectiveness and efficiency of interventions to change outpatient referral rates or improve outpatient referral appropriateness.
Search methods
We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group specialised register (developed through extensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar and the Cochrane Library) (February 2002) and the National Research Register. Updated searches were conducted in MEDLINE and the EPOC specialised register up to October 2007.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series of interventions to change or improve outpatient referrals. Participants were primary care physicians. The outcomes were objectively measured provider performance or health outcomes.
Data collection and analysis
A minimum of two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality.
Main results
Seventeen studies involving 23 separate comparisons were included. Nine studies (14 comparisons) evaluated professional educational interventions. Ineffective strategies included: passive dissemination of local referral guidelines (two studies), feedback of referral rates (one study) and discussion with an independent medical adviser (one study). Generally effective strategies included dissemination of guidelines with structured referral sheets (four out of five studies) and involvement of consultants in educational activities (two out of three studies). Four studies evaluated organisational interventions (patient management by family physicians compared to general internists, attachment of a physiotherapist to general practices, a new slot system for referrals and requiring a second 'in‐house' opinion prior to referral), all of which were effective. Four studies (five comparisons) evaluated financial interventions. One study evaluating change from a capitation based to mixed capitation and fee‐for‐service system and from a fee‐for‐service to a capitation based system (with an element of risk sharing for secondary care services) observed a reduction in referral rates. Modest reductions in referral rates of uncertain significance were observed following the introduction of the general practice fundholding scheme in the United Kingdom (UK). One study evaluating the effect of providing access to private specialists demonstrated an increase in the proportion of patients referred to specialist services but no overall effect on referral rates.
Authors' conclusions
There are a limited number of rigorous evaluations to base policy on. Active local educational interventions involving secondary care specialists and structured referral sheets are the only interventions shown to impact on referral rates based on current evidence. The effects of 'in‐house' second opinion and other intermediate primary care based alternatives to outpatient referral appear promising.
PDF
