Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care.

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.

Substitution of general practitioners by nurse practitioners in out-of-hours primary care: a quasi-experimental study.

AIM: To provide insight into the impact of substituting general practitioners with nurse practitioners in out-of-hours services on: (1) the number of patients; and (2) general practitioners' caseload (patient characteristics, urgency levels, types of complaints). BACKGROUND: General practitioners' workload during out-of-hours care is high, and the number of hours they work out-of-hours has increased, which raises concerns about maintaining quality of care. One response to these challenges is shifting care to nurse practitioners. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study comparing differences between and within out-of-hours teams: experimental, one nurse practitioner and four general practitioners; control, five general practitioners. METHODS: Data of 12,092 patients from one general practitioners cooperative were extracted from medical records between April 2011 and July 2012. RESULTS: The number of patients was similar in the two study arms. In the experimental arm, the nurse practitioner saw on average 16·3% of the patients and each general practitioner on average 20·9% of the patients. General practitioners treated more older patients; higher urgency levels; and digestive, cardiovascular and neurological complaints. Nurse practitioners treated more patients with skin and respiratory complaints. Substitution did not lead to a meaningful increase of general practitioners' caseload. CONCLUSION: The results show that nurse practitioners can make a valuable contribution to patient care during out-of-hours. The patients managed and care provided by them is roughly the same as general practitioners. In areas with a shortage of general practitioners, administrators could consider employing nurses who are competent to independently treat patients with a broad range of complaints to offer timely care to patients with acute problems.

The effectiveness of nurse practitioners working at a GP cooperative: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In many countries out-of-hours care faces serious challenges, including shortage of general practitioners, a high workload, reduced motivation to work out of hours, and increased demand for out-of-hours care. One response to these challenges is the introduction of nurse practitioner as doctor substitutes, in order to maintain the (high) accessibility and safety of out of hours care. Although nurse practitioners have proven to provide equally safe and efficient care during daytime primary care, it is unclear whether substitution is effective and efficient in the more complex out of hours primary care. This study aims to assess the effects of substitution of care from general practitioners to nurse practitioners in an out of hours primary care setting. DESIGN: A quasi experimental study is undertaken at one "general practitioner cooperative" to offer out-of-hours care for 304.000 people in the South East of the Netherlands. In the experimental condition patient care is provided by a team of one nurse practitioner and four general practitioners; where the nurse practitioner replaces one general practitioner during one day of the weekend from 10 am to 5 pm. In the control condition patient care is provided by a team of five general practitioners during the other day of the weekend, also from 10 am to 5 pm. The study period last 15 months, from April 2011 till July 2012. METHODS: Data will be collected on number of different outcomes using a range of methods. Our primary outcome is substitution of care. This is calculated using the number and characteristics of patients that have a consultation at the GP cooperative. We compare the number of patients seen by both professionals, type of complaints, resource utilization (e.g. prescription, tests, investigations, referrals) and waiting times in the experimental condition and control condition. This data is derived from patient electronic medical records. Secondary outcomes are: patient satisfaction; general practitioners workload; quality and safety of care and barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION: The study will provide evidence whether substitution of care in out-of-hours setting is safe and efficient and give insight into barriers and facilitators related to the introduction of nurse practitioners in out-of-hours setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01388374.

Participation in and attitude towards the national immunization program in the Netherlands: data from population-based questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the determinants of participation and attitude towards the National Immunisation Program (NIP) may be helpful in tailoring information campaigns for this program. Our aim was to determine which factors were associated with nonparticipation in the NIP and which ones were associated with parents' intention to accept remaining vaccinations. Further, we analyzed possible changes in opinion on vaccination over a 10 year period. METHODS: We used questionnaire data from two independent, population-based, cross-sectional surveys performed in 1995-96 and 2006-07. For the 2006-07 survey, logistic regression modelling was used to evaluate what factors were associated with nonparticipation and with parents' intention to accept remaining vaccinations. We used multivariate multinomial logistic regression modelling to compare the results between the two surveys. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of parents reported that they or their child (had) participated in the NIP. Similarly, 95% reported they intended to accept remaining vaccinations. Ethnicity, religion, income, educational level and anthroposophic beliefs were important determinants of nonparticipation in the NIP. Parental concerns that played a role in whether or not they would accept remaining vaccinations included safety of vaccinations, maximum number of injections, whether vaccinations protect the health of one's child and whether vaccinating healthy children is necessary. Although about 90% reported their opinion towards vaccination had not changed, a larger proportion of participants reported to be less inclined to accept vaccination in 2006-07 than in 1995-96. CONCLUSION: Most participants had a positive attitude towards vaccination, although some had doubts. Groups with a lower income or educational level or of non-Western descent participated less in the NIP than those with a high income or educational level or indigenous Dutch and have been less well identified previously. Particular attention ought to be given to these groups as they contribute in large measure to the rate of nonparticipation in the NIP, i.e., to a greater extent than well-known vaccine refusers such as specific religious groups and anthroposophics. Our finding that the proportion of the population inclined to accept vaccinations is smaller than it was 10 years ago highlights the need to increase knowledge about attitudes and beliefs regarding the NIP.

The 2007­2010 Q fever epidemic in The Netherlands: characteristics of notified acute Q fever patients and the association with dairy goat farming.

We describe the Q fever epidemic in the Netherlands with emphasis on the epidemiological characteristics of acute Q fever patients and the association with veterinary factors. Data from 3264 notifications for acute Q fever in the period from 2007 through 2009 were analysed. The patients most affected were men, smokers and persons aged 40­60 years. Pneumonia was the most common clinical presentation (62% in 2007 and 2008). Only 3.2% of the patients were working in the agriculture sector and 0.5% in the meat-processing industry including abattoirs. Dairy goat farms with Coxiella burnetii-induced abortion waves were mainly located in the same area where human cases occurred. Airborne transmission of contaminated dust particles from commercial dairy goat farms in densely populated areas has probably caused this epidemic. In 2010, there was a sharp decline in the number of notified cases following the implementation of control measures on dairy goat and sheep farms such as vaccination, hygiene measures and culling of pregnant animals on infected farms. In combination with a rise in the human population with antibodies against C. burnetii, these have most likely ended the outbreak. Development of chronic Q fever in infected patients remains an important problem for years to come.

Antibodies against Coxiella burnetii and pregnancy outcome during the 2007-2008 Q fever outbreaks in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Q fever has become a major public health problem in The Netherlands. Infection with Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) during pregnancy has resulted in adverse pregnancy outcome in the majority of reported cases. Therefore, we aimed to quantify this risk by examining the earliest periods corresponding to the epidemic in The Netherlands. METHODS: Serum samples that had been collected from the area of highest incidence by an existing national prenatal screening programme and data from the Netherlands Perinatal Registry (PRN) on diagnosis and outcome were used. We performed indirect immunofluorescence assay to detect the presence of IgM and IgG antibodies against C. burnetii in the samples. The serological results were analyzed to determine statistical association with recorded pregnancy outcome. RESULTS: Evaluation of serological results for 1174 women in the PRN indicated that the presence of IgM and IgG antibodies against phase II of C. burnetii was not significantly associated with preterm delivery, low birth weight, or several other outcome measures. CONCLUSION: The present population-based study showed no evidence of adverse pregnancy outcome among women who had antibodies to C. burnetii during early pregnancy.

[Three years of Q fever in the Netherlands: faster diagnosis]. / Drie jaar Q-koorts in Nederland: snellere diagnose.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if more rapid diagnosis and treatment is possible and to assess if this could be improved, since the first outbreak of Q fever in 2007. DESIGN: Retrospective study of secondary data. METHODS: Analysis of surveillance data regarding Q fever over the period 2007 to 2009 and additional information on some patients from 2007 and 2008 obtained from general practitioners. RESULTS: Diagnostic delay fell sharply between 2007 and 2009 and to a lesser extent, so did therapeutic delay from 2007 to 2008. In high incidence areas, diagnosis and treatment was faster with a lower proportion of patients admitted to hospital than in low incidence areas. CONCLUSION: It appears that familiarity with the condition leads to faster diagnosis coupled with a lower percentage of hospital admissions. In order to react quickly it is necessary that doctor and patient should be aware of Q fever, especially in areas of low incidence. Polymerase chain reaction diagnostic techniques should also be available.