Primary Care Nurse Practitioner Wage Differences by Employment Setting.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported that primary care nurse practitioners working in primary care settings may earn less than those working in specialty care settings. However, few studies have examined why such wage difference exists. PURPOSE: This study used human capital theory to determine the degree to which the wage differences between dingsPCNPs working in primary care versus specialty care settings is driven by the differences in PCNPs' characteristics. Feasible generalized least squares regression was used to examine the wage differences for PCNPs working in primary care and specialty care settings. METHODS: A cross-sectional, secondary data analysis was conducted using the restricted file of 2012 National Sample Survey of Nurse Practitioners. FINDINGS: Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique was used to explore the factors contributing to wage differences.The results suggested that hourly wages of PCNPs working in primary care settings were, on average, 7.1% lower than PCNPs working in specialty care settings, holding PCNPs' socio-demographic, human capital, and employment characteristics constant. Approximately 4% of this wage difference was explained by PCNPs' characteristics; but 96% of these differences were due to unexplained factors. DISCUSSION: A large, unexplained wage difference exists between PCNPs working in primary care and specialty care settings.

Cost-utility analysis of an advanced pressure ulcer management protocol followed by trained wound, ostomy, and continence nurses.

The high prevalence of severe pressure ulcers (PUs) is an important issue that requires to be highlighted in Japan. In a previous study, we devised an advanced PU management protocol to enable early detection of and intervention for deep tissue injury and critical colonization. This protocol was effective for preventing more severe PUs. The present study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of the care provided using an advanced PU management protocol, from a medical provider's perspective, implemented by trained wound, ostomy, and continence nurses (WOCNs), with that of conventional care provided by a control group of WOCNs. A Markov model was constructed for a 1-year time horizon to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of advanced PU management compared with conventional care. The number of quality-adjusted life-years gained, and the cost in Japanese yen (¥) ($US1 = ¥120; 2015) was used as the outcome. Model inputs for clinical probabilities and related costs were based on our previous clinical trial results. Univariate sensitivity analyses were performed. Furthermore, a Bayesian multivariate probability sensitivity analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulations with advanced PU management. Two different models were created for initial cohort distribution. For both models, the expected effectiveness for the intervention group using advanced PU management techniques was high, with a low expected cost value. The sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were robust. Intervention by WOCNs using advanced PU management techniques was more effective and cost-effective than conventional care.

Changing face of care for patients with moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease: the role of specialist nurses in the governance of anti-TNF prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy is highly effective for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but expensive and potentially toxic. Meticulous supervision prior to and during anti-TNF treatment is required to screen and monitor patients for adverse clinical events. In addition, a systematic administrative process is necessary to comply with Australian Medicare requirements and ensure ongoing therapy is uninterrupted. IBD nurses are essential components of multidisciplinary IBD services, but their role in facilitating the safe and timely delivery of anti-TNF drugs is unacknowledged. AIM: The aim of the study was to calculate time spent by IBD nurses on anti-TNF drug governance and its indirect cost. METHODS: Time spent on activities related to anti-TNF governance was retrospectively assessed by questionnaire among IBD nurses employed at Melbourne hospitals. The capacity of IBD clinics at these hospitals was separately evaluated by surveying medical heads of clinics. RESULTS: On average, each Melbourne IBD service handled 150 existing and 40 new anti-TNF referrals in 2013. The average annual time spent by nurses supervising an existing and newly referred anti-TNF patient was 3.5 and 5.25 h respectively, or a minimum of two full working days per week. If clinicians undertook this activity during normal clinic time, the organisational opportunity cost was at least 58%. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNF therapy governance is an essential quality component of IBD care that is associated with a definite, indirect cost for every patient treated. IBD nurses are best positioned to undertake this role, but an activity-based funding model is urgently required to resource this element of their work.

A nurse-run clinic for patients with incidentally discovered small abdominal aortic aneurysms is feasible and cost-effective.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with incidentally discovered small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) require assessment by a vascular surgery department for possible enrollment in a surveillance programme. Our unit implemented a vascular nurse-run AAA clinic in October 2010. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of a specialist nurse-run small AAA clinic. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data were collected prospectively for all patients seen in the new vascular nurse clinic between October 2010 and November 2012. A validated AAA operative mortality score was used to aid decision making by the vascular nurse. RESULTS: Some 250 patients were seen in the clinic. 198 (79.2%) patients were enrolled in surveillance, 40 (16%) declined enrollment and 12 (4.8%) were referred to a consultant clinic for further assessment. The majority of patients were male and the mean age was 73.7 years. Co-morbidities included hypertension, a history of cardiovascular disease, and hyperlipidaemia. The majority of referrals were considered to be low operative risk. No aneurysms ruptured whilst under surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-run clinic that assesses patients with incidentally discovered small AAAs for inclusion in AAA surveillance is a feasible alternative to assessment of these patients in a consultant-run clinic.

The outcome and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care (NLC) for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial, the assessment of clinical effects followed a non-inferiority design, while patient satisfaction and cost assessments followed a superiority design. Participants were 181 adults with RA randomly assigned to either NLC or rheumatologist-led care (RLC), both arms carrying out their normal practice. The primary outcome was the disease activity score (DAS28) assessed at baseline, weeks 13, 26, 39 and 52; the non-inferiority margin being DAS28 change of 0.6. Mean differences between the groups were estimated controlling for covariates following per-protocol (PP) and intention-to-treat (ITT) strategies. The economic evaluation (NHS and healthcare perspectives) estimated cost relative to change in DAS28 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) derived from EQ5D. RESULTS: Demographics and baseline characteristics of patients under NLC (n=91) were comparable to those under RLC (n=90). Overall baseline-adjusted difference in DAS28 mean change (95% CI) for RLC minus NLC was -0.31 (-0.63 to 0.02) for PP and -0.15 (-0.45 to 0.14) for ITT analyses. Mean difference in healthcare cost (RLC minus NLC) was £710 (-£352, £1773) and -£128 (-£1263, £1006) for PP and ITT analyses, respectively. NLC was more cost-effective with respect to cost and DAS28, but not in relation to QALY utility scores. In all secondary outcomes, significance was met for non-inferiority of NLC. NLC had higher 'general satisfaction' scores than RLC in week 26. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide robust evidence to support non-inferiority of NLC in the management of RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN29803766.

Cost-effectiveness of involving nurse specialists for adult patients with urinary incontinence in primary care compared to care-as-usual: an economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To determine the 12-month, societal cost-effectiveness of involving urinary incontinence (UI) nurse specialists in primary care compared to care-as-usual by general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: From 2005 until 2008 an economic evaluation was performed alongside a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing UI patients receiving care by nurse specialists with patients receiving care-as-usual by GPs in the Netherlands. One hundred eighty-six adult patients with stress, urgency, or mixed UI were randomly allocated to the intervention and 198 to care-as-usual; they were followed for 1 year. Main outcome measures were Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY(societal) ) based on societal preferences for health outcomes (EuroQol-5D), QALY(patient) based on patient preferences for health outcomes (EuroQol VAS), and Incontinence Severity weighted Life Year (ISLY) based on patient-reported severity and impact of UI (ICIQ-UI SF). Health care resource use, patient and family costs, and productivity costs were assessed. Data were collected by three monthly questionnaires. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrap simulation, and the expected value of perfect information was calculated (EVPI). RESULTS: Compared to care-as-usual, nurse specialist involvement costs € 16,742/QALY(societal) gained. Both QALY(patient) and ISLY yield slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness results. At a threshold of € 40,000/QALY(societal,) the probability that the intervention is cost-effective is 58%. The EVPI amounts to € 78 million. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, we recommend adopting the nurse specialist intervention in primary care, while conducting more research through careful monitoring of the effectiveness and costs of the intervention in routine practice.

The cost-effectiveness of substituting physicians with diabetes nurse specialists: a randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up.

AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intervention substituting physicians with nurse specialists. BACKGROUND: Increasing populations of people with diabetes in most Western countries require creative solutions that give high-quality chronic care while controlling costs. Instigating nurse specialists as a substitute for physicians yields positive results in this area. Research about such interventions in a hospital-based setting is limited. METHODS: This paper is a report of a study of a randomized, non-blinded clinical trial including people with diabetes mellitus types 1 and 2. In the intervention group nurse specialists were the central carers, providing care that conformed to a preset protocol. Patients were included between 2004 and 2007. Costs, quality of life and adverse events were measured, cost-effect ratios and incremental cost-effect ratios were calculated based on health-resource utilization rates, corresponding market prices and national tariffs from 2007. RESULTS: Health related quality of life scores did not differ significantly between the control and the intervention group. In the intervention group, fewer patients were hospitalized and fewer side effects from drugs were reported compared to controls. Nurse specialists as central care givers generated a modest reduction in costs per quality adjusted life year gained compared to usual care. CONCLUSION: Nurse specialists give diabetes care that is similar to care provided by physicians in terms of quality of life and economic value. Instigating a nurse specialist as central carer yields opportunities to generate cost savings. Developing interventions which also focus on prevention of complications is recommended when aiming for long-term organisational cost savings.

Clinical nurse specialists: essential resource for an effective NHS.

Despite emerging evidence for the clinical and financial efficacy of the clinical nurse specialist (CNS), the provision of this role is patchy across the country. There is also a risk that incumbent CNS' may be redirected to less specialist work in trusts that do not appreciate the full value of the service that these nurses provide. Optimal and equitable patient access to CNS care will require the development of a strong evidence base showing that specialist nurses not only deliver patient-focused care, but that they can also help to meet healthcare managers' objectives of streamlined, cost-effective clinical services.

Justifying the expense of the cancer Clinical Nurse Specialist.

In order to maximise patient care, assessment of the adequacy of the service provision by the Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) must be regularly undertaken. This study attempted to determine whether CNSs were providing an adequate service via retrospective and prospective audit. The results of a comprehensive audit of the work of the CNS within a tertiary referral Hepatobiliary Unit are presented. The audit involved postal and telephone questionnaires as well as prospective collection of data. The majority of responses from patients were positive, with many finding the CNS a useful and well-utilised contact. Overall, the CNSs performed well in each of their designated tasks; however, areas were still identified which could be further improved. Audit is essential in providing feedback to the CNS and to identify areas which require improvement. The CNS has evolved to meet a clinical gap in patient care, and as a result, the role of a CNS is frequently nebulous or poorly defined. This renders evaluation of the CNS problematic and fraught with difficulties. However, a thorough assessment can still be made using carefully constructed audit looking at each task of the CNS.

Vision, grit, and collaboration: how the Wisconsin Center for Nursing achieved both sustainable funding and established itself as a state health care workforce leader.

In 2001, a dedicated group of nurses from across Wisconsin came together to discuss how to create a state center of expertise on key nursing workforce issues. The result was the establishment of the Wisconsin Center for Nursing (WCN) in 2005. Since that time, through its statewide Board of Directors, WCN has clarified and targeted specific state workforce needs and identified gaps that exist in addressing those needs. During its five-year existence, WCN has received funding from a variety of sources, and volunteers have spent hundreds of hours working on behalf of the organization. Finding a sustainable base of funding for WCN has been a priority in order to ensure that the organization can hire permanent staff and invest in ongoing initiatives. In 2009, WCN was involved in developing a strategy that resolved both the issue of sustainability and the need to collect and analyze data on the nursing profession. A bill was passed by the Wisconsin legislature that required RNs and LPNs to complete a comprehensive survey every two years when they renew their state licenses. In addition, the legislature raised the licensure fee for RNs and LPNs and dedicated a portion to WCN to assist in the analysis of the newly-collected nursing workforce data and to develop a state-wide plan addressing the future of the Wisconsin nursing workforce. This article will include the history of the WCN and the details of its journey toward sustainability including accomplishments and lessons learned.

Does shared care help in the treatment of depression?

INTRODUCTION: shared or Collaborative Care in the treatment of Depression is an evidence based intervention which has been shown to be more effective than ordinary general Practitioner care in the treatment of Depression, however, it is not yet Government policy in the United Kingdom. We aimed to bring together in one place all the studies which have been carried out, up till mid 2009, in order to demonstrate the evidence that shared collaborative care has important advantages in terms both of depression outcomes and cost benefits, in order to argue for the adoption of this approach in the United Kingdom and n Europe. METHODS: we carried out a literature search using PUBMED in order to identify and describe all trials, systematic reviews and Metanalyses which have been carried out on shared care until mid 2009. We also described a shared care service for depression which some of us had been involved in developing and working in in Luton in the late 1990's. We have excluded papers which describe trials which have not yet been carried out, and instead focussed on the trials which have reported. RESULTS: it has been demonstrated in numerous recent studies that shared care in the treatment of depression, which includes the training of General Practitoners in the treatment of depression, and the provision in Primary Care of a Nurse specialist or another professional who will impart psycho-education, ensure concordance with medication, and may provide psychotherapy, leads to both improved treatment outcomes and increased doctor and patient satisfaction, as well providing some cost-benefits, despite somewhat increased immediate costs. This is the case in both adult and adolescent patients, while in the case of diabetic patients depression is improved, despite the lack of improvement in glycaemic control. The shared care intervention continues to be useful in the case of patients with resistant depressive symptoms, though a longer input will be necessary in such cases. Patients with subthreshold depression will not benefit as much, and patients expressed more satisfaction when psychological interventions were offered. It is also the case that collaborative or shared care is effective in treating depression in the elderly. This is shown by studies which include older patients who also suffer from multiple health conditions, arthritis, diabetes, anxiety and PTSD, the poorer, those with suicidal ideation, and also in Ethnic Minorities. DISCUSSION: The results described above are mostly based on studies carried out in the USA, but similar studies have been reported from the United Kingdom, and are consistent with the experience of the service in Luton which we describe. From these results it would seem important that shared, collaborative care, with primary and secondary care doctors (General Practitioners and Psychiatrists) working as part of a single team, with the help of mental health practitioners attached to primary care, but with easy access to secondary care is a productive way of optimising the treatment of depression. In the UK, however, it has not yet been possible to develop such a service for the whole population. This is becausein the UK, General Practice is managed by Primary Care Trusts, while Secondary Care, including Psychiatry, is managed by Mental Health Trusts. This has led the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, and indeed local commissioners of care to focus on a Stepped Model for the treatment of depression, with one key issue being access (or referral) to secondary care, and discharge back to primary care, with a group of Mental Health workers focussing on the facilitation (or gate-keeping) of these processes, rather than focussing on actually optimising outcomes of care. CONCLUSION: the evidence argues for the development of collaborative care between primary and secondary care for the treatment of Depression. This will require common medication guidelines across both Primary and Secondary Care, easy access so that General Practitioners can receive advice from Psychiatrists about patients, and the use of Mental Health Professionals to provide patients with psycho-education, support of concordance with treatment, and psychotherapy. It may be that, in order for this to be achieved, services may need to be re-structured, to allow easy communication between professionals.

Economic evaluation of a randomized clinical trial of hospital versus telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This was an economic evaluation of hospital versus telephone follow-up by specialist nurses after treatment for breast cancer. METHODS: A cost minimization analysis was carried out from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective using data from a trial in which 374 women were randomized to telephone or hospital follow-up. Primary analysis compared NHS resource use for routine follow-up over a mean of 24 months. Secondary analyses included patient and carer travel and productivity costs, and NHS and personal social services costs of care in patients with recurrent breast cancer. RESULTS: Patients who had telephone follow-up had approximately 20 per cent more consultations (634 versus 524). The longer duration of telephone consultations and the frequent use of junior medical staff in hospital clinics resulted in higher routine costs for telephone follow-up (mean difference pound 55 (bias-corrected 95 per cent confidence interval (b.c.i.) pound 29 to pound 77)). There were no significant differences in the costs of treating recurrence, but patients who had hospital-based follow-up had significantly higher travel and productivity costs (mean difference pound 47 (95 per cent b.c.i. pound 40 to pound 55)). CONCLUSION: Telephone follow-up for breast cancer may reduce the burden on busy hospital clinics but will not necessarily lead to cost or salary savings.

A health economic evaluation of follow-up after breast cancer surgery: results of an rct study.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer follow-up programmes consume large resources and despite the indications that several alternative approaches could be used effectively, there is no coherent discussion about costs and/or cost-effectiveness of follow-up programmes. PATIENT AND METHODS: In a prospective trial there were 264 breast cancer patients, stage I and II, randomised to two different follow-up programmes- PG (physician group) and NG (nurse group). The trial period was 5 years. The women in the two intervention groups did not differ in anxiety and depression, their satisfaction with care, their experienced accessibility to the medical centre or their medical outcome as measured by recurrence or death. The analyses were done from different lists representing costs at three hospitals in Sweden according to the principles of a cost minimization study. RESULTS: The cost per person year of follow-up differed between the groups, with 630 euro per person year in PG compared to 495 euro per person year in NG. Thus, specialist nurse intervention with check-ups on demand was 20% less expensive than routine follow-up visits to the physician. The main difference in cost between the groups was explained by the numbers of visits to the physician in the respective study arms. There were 21% more primary contacts in PG than NG. DISCUSSION: The difference in cost per year and patient by study arm is modest, but transforms to nearly 900 euro per patient and 5-year period, offering a substantial opportunity for reallocating resources since breast cancer is the most prevalent tumour worldwide.

Organizational strategies to recruit clinical nurse specialists.

There is strong evidence of the value of the clinical nurse specialist (CNS) role in the acute care environment. Individual hospitals may encounter barriers in recruiting qualified CNSs. The authors discuss one organization's journey to increase recruitment of CNSs through the implementation of a service-line-specific role and a formal staff development program. The number of CNSs in the organization increased with these interventions.

Healthcare utilization of breast cancer patients following telephone-based consultations of oncology nurse navigator via telemedical care.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize breast cancer patients who received telephone-based consultations of oncology nurse navigator via telemedical care (TMC patients) and analyze their healthcare utilization (HCU) one year before and after receiving this service. METHODS: A retrospective study among Maccabi Healthcare Services enrollees that were newly diagnosed during 2016 (n = 1035). HCU, demographic characteristics and comorbidities were obtained from computerized database. Multivariable ordered logit model was specified for the determinants of HCU by quarters. Independent variables included: annual number of telephone-based consultations, gap between diagnosis and first consultation, age, socio-economic status, eligibility for disability and income security benefits, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of our cohort were TMC patients. Compared to others, these patients were younger and had a lower prevalence of hypertension. A higher proportion of these patients received disability benefits, and a lower proportion received income security benefits. The total average annual HCU of TMC patients (n = 107) before first consultation was $8857 and increased to $44130 in the first year following it (p<0.001), predominantly due to a significant increase in outpatient visits ($20380 vs. $3502, p<0.001) and medication costs ($19339 vs. $1758, p<0.001). The multivariable model revealed that each additional telephone-based consultation decreased the likelihood to be in the lowest quarter of the HCU distribution by 1.1 percentage points (p = 0.015), and increased the likelihood to be in the upper quarter of the HCU distribution by 1.1 percentage points (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in outpatient care and medications usage following first consultation. Moreover, a more intense use of this service was associated with elevated HCU. This result may stem from the proactive nature of the telemedical care.

Cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led case management intervention in general medical outpatients compared with usual care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led, home-based, case-management intervention (NHI) after hospital discharge in addition to usual care. METHODS: Economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial after being discharged home with 24 weeks of follow-up. Patients discharged to their home from a general hospital were randomly assigned to NHI or usual care. Clinical outcomes were frequency of emergency readmissions, quality of life, and psychological functioning. Direct costs were measured by means of cost diaries kept by the patients and information obtained from the patients' pharmacists. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were randomized, 61 patients dropped out, and 26 had incomplete data, leaving a total of 121 patients included in the final analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in emergency readmissions, quality of life, and psychological functioning. There was a substantial difference in total costs between the NHI group and the control group (4286 Euro; 95% CI, -41; 8026), but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: NHI is not a cost-effective intervention. We do not recommend the implementation of this intervention in populations that do not consist of severely vulnerable and complex patients. Future studies should include complexity assessment on inclusion and evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention in patients with more complex profiles.