Nurse practitioner caseload in primary health care: Scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify recommendations for determining patient panel/caseload size for nurse practitioners in community-based primary health care settings. DESIGN: Scoping review of the international published and grey literature. DATA SOURCES: The search included electronic databases, international professional and governmental websites, contact with experts, and hand searches of reference lists. Eligible papers had to (a) address caseload or patient panels for nurse practitioners in community-based primary health care settings serving an all-ages population; and (b) be published in English or French between January 2000 and July 2014. Level one testing included title and abstract screening by two team members. Relevant papers were retained for full text review in level two testing, and reviewed by two team members. A third reviewer acted as a tiebreaker. Data were extracted using a structured extraction form by one team member and verified by a second member. Descriptive statistics were estimated. Content analysis was used for qualitative data. RESULTS: We identified 111 peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents. Most of the papers were published in Canada and the United States after 2010. Current methods to determine panel/caseload size use large administrative databases, provider work hours and the average number of patient visits. Most of the papers addressing the topic of patient panel/caseload size in community-based primary health care were descriptive. The average number of patients seen by nurse practitioners per day varied considerably within and between countries; an average of 9-15 patients per day was common. Patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender) and health conditions (e.g., multiple chronic conditions) appear to influence patient panel/caseload size. Very few studies used validated tools to classify patient acuity levels or disease burden scores. DISCUSSION: The measurement of productivity and the determination of panel/caseload size is complex. Current metrics may not capture activities relevant to community-based primary health care nurse practitioners. Tools to measure all the components of these role are needed when determining panel/caseload size. Outcomes research is absent in the determination of panel/caseload size. CONCLUSION: There are few systems in place to track and measure community-based primary health care nurse practitioner activities. The development of such mechanisms is an important next step to assess community-based primary health care nurse practitioner productivity and determine patient panel/caseload size. Decisions about panel/caseload size must take into account the effects of nurse practitioner activities on outcomes of care.

A reanalysis of cluster randomized trials showed interrupted time-series studies were valuable in health system evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: There is often substantial uncertainty about the impacts of health system and policy interventions. Despite that, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are uncommon in this field, partly because experiments can be difficult to carry out. An alternative method for impact evaluation is the interrupted time-series (ITS) design. Little is known, however, about how results from the two methods compare. Our aim was to explore whether ITS studies yield results that differ from those of randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted single-arm ITS analyses (segmented regression) based on data from the intervention arm of cluster randomized trials (C-RCTs), that is, discarding control arm data. Secondarily, we included the control group data in the analyses, by subtracting control group data points from intervention group data points, thereby constructing a time series representing the difference between the intervention and control groups. We compared the results from the single-arm and controlled ITS analyses with results based on conventional aggregated analyses of trial data. RESULTS: The findings were largely concordant, yielding effect estimates with overlapping 95% confidence intervals (CI) across different analytical methods. However, our analyses revealed the importance of a concurrent control group and of taking baseline and follow-up trends into account in the analysis of C-RCTs. CONCLUSION: The ITS design is valuable for evaluation of health systems interventions, both when RCTs are not feasible and in the analysis and interpretation of data from C-RCTs.

Advanced practice nursing in Canada: overview of a decision support synthesis.

The objective of this decision support synthesis was to identify and review published and grey literature and to conduct stakeholder interviews to (1) describe the distinguishing characteristics of clinical nurse specialist (CNS) and nurse practitioner (NP) role definitions and competencies relevant to Canadian contexts, (2) identify the key barriers and facilitators for the effective development and utilization of CNS and NP roles and (3) inform the development of evidence-based recommendations for the individual, organizational and system supports required to better integrate CNS and NP roles into the Canadian healthcare system and advance the delivery of nursing and patient care services in Canada. Four types of advanced practice nurses (APNs) were the focus: CNSs, primary healthcare nurse practitioners (PHCNPs), acute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) and a blended CNS/NP role. We worked with a multidisciplinary, multijurisdictional advisory board that helped identify documents and key informant interviewees, develop interview questions and formulate implications from our findings. We included 468 published and unpublished English- and French-language papers in a scoping review of the literature. We conducted interviews in English and French with 62 Canadian and international key informants (APNs, healthcare administrators, policy makers, nursing regulators, educators, physicians and other team members). We conducted four focus groups with a total of 19 APNs, educators, administrators and policy makers. A multidisciplinary roundtable convened by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation formulated evidence-informed policy and practice recommendations based on the synthesis findings. This paper forms the foundation for this special issue, which contains 10 papers summarizing different dimensions of our synthesis. Here, we summarize the synthesis methods and the recommendations formulated at the roundtable.

Systematic reviews and original articles differ in relevance, novelty, and use in an evidence-based service for physicians: PLUS project.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the ratings from physicians, and use by physicians, of high quality, clinically pertinent original articles and systematic reviews from over 110 clinical journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective observational study. Data were collected via an online clinical rating system of relevance and newsworthiness for quality-filtered clinical articles and via an online delivery service for practicing physicians, during the course of the McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service Trial. Clinical ratings of articles in the MORE system by over 1,900 physicians were compared and the usage rates over 13 months of these articles by physicians, who were not raters, were examined. RESULTS: Systematic reviews were rated significantly higher than original articles for relevance (P<0.001), but significantly lower for newsworthiness (P<0.001). Reviews published in the CDSR had significantly lower ratings for both relevance (P<0.001) and newsworthiness (P<0.001) than reviews published in other journals. Participants accessed reviews more often than original articles (P<0.001), and accessed reviews from journals more often than from CDSR (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Physician ratings and the use of high-quality original articles and systematic reviews differed, generally favoring systematic reviews over original articles. Reviews published in journals were rated higher and accessed more often than Cochrane reviews.

Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if citation counts at two years could be predicted for clinical articles that pass basic criteria for critical appraisal using data within three weeks of publication from external sources and an online article rating service. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Online rating service, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 1274 articles from 105 journals published from January to June 2005, randomly divided into a 60:40 split to provide derivation and validation datasets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 20 article and journal features, including ratings of clinical relevance and newsworthiness, routinely collected by the McMaster online rating of evidence system, compared with citation counts at two years. RESULTS: The derivation analysis showed that the regression equation accounted for 60% of the variation (R2=0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.538 to 0.629). This model applied to the validation dataset gave a similar prediction (R2=0.56, 0.476 to 0.596, shrinkage 0.04; shrinkage measures how well the derived equation matches data from the validation dataset). Cited articles in the top half and top third were predicted with 83% and 61% sensitivity and 72% and 82% specificity. Higher citations were predicted by indexing in numerous databases; number of authors; abstraction in synoptic journals; clinical relevance scores; number of cited references; and original, multicentred, and therapy articles from journals with a greater proportion of articles abstracted. CONCLUSION: Citation counts can be reliably predicted at two years using data within three weeks of publication.

Which journals do primary care physicians and specialists access from an online service?

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to determine which online journals primary care physicians and specialists not affiliated with an academic medical center access and how the accesses correlate with measures of journal quality and importance. METHODS: Observational study of full-text accesses made during an eighteen-month digital library trial was performed. Access counts were correlated with six methods composed of nine measures for assessing journal importance: ISI impact factors; number of high-quality articles identified during hand-searches of key clinical journals; production data for ACP Journal Club, InfoPOEMs, and Evidence-Based Medicine; and mean clinician-provided clinical relevance and newsworthiness scores for individual journal titles. RESULTS: Full-text journals were accessed 2,322 times by 87 of 105 physicians. Participants accessed 136 of 348 available journal titles. Physicians often selected journals with relatively higher numbers of articles abstracted in ACP Journal Club. Accesses also showed significant correlations with 6 other measures of quality. Specialists' access patterns correlated with 3 measures, with weaker correlations than for primary care physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians, more so than specialists, chose full-text articles from clinical journals deemed important by several measures of value. Most journals accessed by both groups were of high quality as measured by this study's methods for assessing journal importance.

McMaster PLUS: a cluster randomized clinical trial of an intervention to accelerate clinical use of evidence-based information from digital libraries.

BACKGROUND: Physicians have difficulty keeping up with new evidence from medical research. METHODS: We developed the McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service (PLUS), an internet-based addition to an existing digital library, which delivered quality- and relevance-rated medical literature to physicians, matched to their clinical disciplines. We evaluated PLUS in a cluster-randomized trial of 203 participating physicians in Northern Ontario, comparing a Full-Serve version (that included alerts to new articles and a cumulative database of alerts) with a Self-Serve version (that included a passive guide to evidence-based literature). Utilization of the service was the primary trial end-point. RESULTS: Mean logins to the library rose by 0.77 logins/month/user (95% CI 0.43, 1.11) in the Full-Serve group compared with the Self-Serve group. The proportion of Full-Serve participants who utilized the service during each month of the study period showed a sustained increase during the intervention period, with a relative increase of 57% (95% CI 12, 123) compared with the Self-Serve group. There were no differences in these proportions during the baseline period, and following the crossover of the Self-Serve group to Full-Serve, the Self-Serve group's usage became indistinguishable from that of the Full-Serve group (relative difference 4.4 (95% CI -23.7, 43.0). Also during the intervention and crossover periods, measures of self-reported usefulness did not show a difference between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: A quality- and relevance-rated online literature service increased the utilization of evidence-based information from a digital library by practicing physicians.

Optimal search strategies for detecting cost and economic studies in EMBASE.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations in the medical literature compare competing diagnosis or treatment methods for their use of resources and their expected outcomes. The best evidence currently available from research regarding both cost and economic comparisons will continue to expand as this type of information becomes more important in today's clinical practice. Researchers and clinicians need quick, reliable ways to access this information. A key source of this type of information is large bibliographic databases such as EMBASE. The objective of this study was to develop search strategies that optimize the retrieval of health costs and economics studies from EMBASE. METHODS: We conducted an analytic survey, comparing hand searches of journals with retrievals from EMBASE for candidate search terms and combinations. 6 research assistants read all issues of 55 journals indexed by EMBASE for the publishing year 2000. We rated all articles using purpose and quality indicators and categorized them into clinically relevant original studies, review articles, general papers, or case reports. The original and review articles were then categorized for purpose (i.e., cost and economics and other clinical topics) and depending on the purpose as 'pass' or 'fail' for methodologic rigor. Candidate search strategies were developed for economic and cost studies, then run in the 55 EMBASE journals, the retrievals being compared with the hand search data. The sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy of the search strategies were calculated. RESULTS: Combinations of search terms for detecting both cost and economic studies attained levels of 100% sensitivity with specificity levels of 92.9% and 92.3% respectively. When maximizing for both sensitivity and specificity, the combination of terms for detecting cost studies (sensitivity) increased 2.2% over the single term but at a slight decrease in specificity of 0.9%. The maximized combination of terms for economic studies saw no change in sensitivity from the single term and only a 0.1% increase in specificity. CONCLUSION: Selected terms have excellent performance in the retrieval of studies of health costs and economics from EMBASE.