BackgroundPhysicians’ shortage in many countries and demands of high-quality and affordable care make physician-nurse substitution an appealing workforce strategy. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of physician-nurse substitution in primary care on clinical parameters.MethodsWe systematically searched OVID Medline and Embase, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, up to August 2012; selected peer-reviewed RCTs comparing physician-led care with nurse-led care on changes in clinical parameters. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate by independent reviewers. We assessed the individual study risk of bias; calculated the study-specific and pooled relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD); and performed fixed-effects meta-analyses.Results11 RCTs (N = 30,247) were included; most were from Europe, generally small with higher risk of bias. In all studies, nurses provided care for complex conditions including HIV, hypertension, heart failure, cerebrovascular diseases, diabetes, asthma, Parkinson’s disease and incontinence. Meta-analyses showed greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) in favour of nurse-led care (WMD −4.27 mmHg, 95% CI −6.31 to −2.23) but no statistically significant differences between groups in the reduction of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD −1.48 mmHg, 95%CI −3.05 to −0.09), total cholesterol (TC) (WMD -0.08 mmol/l, 95%CI -0.22 to 0.07) or glycosylated haemoglobin (WMD 0.12%HbAc1, 95%CI -0.13 to 0.37). Of other 32 clinical parameters identified, less than a fifth favoured nurse-led care while 25 showed no significant differences between groups.Limitationsdisease-specific interventions from a small selection of healthcare systems, insufficient quantity and quality of studies, many different parameters.Conclusionstrained nurses appeared to be better than physicians at lowering SBP but similar at lowering DBP, TC or HbA1c. There is insufficient evidence that nurse-led care leads to better outcomes of other clinical parameters than physician-led care.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

BackgroundSocieties are facing medical resource scarcities, inter alia due to increased life expectancy and limited health budgets and also due to temporal or continuous physical shortages of resources like donor organs. This makes it challenging to meet the medical needs of all. Ethicists provide normative guidance for how to fairly allocate scarce medical resources, but legitimate decisions require additionally information regarding what the general public considers to be fair. The purpose of this study was to explore how lay people, general practitioners, medical students and other health professionals evaluate the fairness of ten allocation principles for scarce medical resources: ‘sickest first’, ‘waiting list’, ‘prognosis’, ‘behaviour’ (i.e., those who engage in risky behaviour should not be prioritized), ‘instrumental value’ (e.g., health care workers should be favoured during epidemics), ‘combination of criteria’ (i.e., a sequence of the ‘youngest first’, ‘prognosis’, and ‘lottery’ principles), ‘reciprocity’ (i.e., those who provided services to the society in the past should be rewarded), ‘youngest first’, ‘lottery’, and ‘monetary contribution’.Methods1,267 respondents to an online questionnaire were confronted with hypothetical situations of scarcity regarding (i) donor organs, (ii) hospital beds during an epidemic, and (iii) joint replacements. Nine allocation principles were evaluated in terms of fairness for each type of scarcity along 7-point Likert scales. The relationship between demographic factors (gender, age, religiosity, political orientation, and health status) and fairness evaluations was modelled with logistic regression.ResultsMedical background was a major predictor of fairness evaluations. While general practitioners showed different response patterns for all three allocation situations, the responses by lay people were very similar. Lay people rated ‘sickest first’ and ‘waiting list’ on top of all allocation principles—e.g., for donor organs 83.8% (95% CI: [81.2%–86.2%]) rated ‘sickest first’ as fair (‘fair’ is represented by scale points 5–7), and 69.5% [66.2%–72.4%] rated ‘waiting list’ as fair. The corresponding results for general practitioners: ‘prognosis’ 79.7% [74.2%–84.9%], ‘combination of criteria’ 72.6% [66.4%–78.5%], and ‘sickest first’ 74.5% [68.6%–80.1%); these were the highest-rated allocation principles for donor organs allocation. Interestingly, only 44.3% [37.7%–50.9%] of the general practitioners rated ‘instrumental value’ as fair for the allocation of hospital beds during a flu epidemic. The fairness evaluations by general practitioners obtained for joint replacements: ‘sickest first’ 84.0% [78.8%–88.6%], ‘combination of criteria’ 65.6% [59.2%–71.8%], and ‘prognosis’ 63.7% [57.1%–70.0%]. ‘Lottery’, ‘reciprocity’, ‘instrumental value’, and ‘monetary contribution’ were considered very unfair allocation principles by both groups. Medical students’ ratings were similar to those of general practitioners, and the ratings by other health professionals resembled those of lay...

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

BackgroundEmergency Departments (ED) in Switzerland are faced with increasing numbers of patients seeking non-urgent treatment. The high rate of walks-ins with conditions that may be treated in primary care has led to suggestions that those patients would best cared for in a community setting rather than in a hospital. Efficient reorganisation of emergency care tailored to patients needs requires information on the patient populations using the various emergency services currently available. The aim of this study is to evaluate the differences between the characteristics of walk-in patients seeking treatment at an ED and those of patients who use traditional out-of-hours GP (General Practitioner) services provided by a GP-Cooperative (GP-C).MethodsIn 2007 and 2009 data was collected covering all consecutive patient-doctor encounters at the ED of a hospital and all those occurring as a result of contacting a GP-C over two evaluation periods of one month each. Comparison was made between a GP-C and the ED of the Waid City Hospital in Zurich. Patient characteristics, time and source of referral, diagnostic interventions and mode of discharge were evaluated. Medical problems were classified according to the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2). Patient characteristics were compared using non-parametric tests and multiple logistic regression analysis was applied to investigate independent determinants for contacting a GP-C or an ED.ResultsOverall a total of 2974 patient encounters were recorded. 1901 encounters were walk-ins and underwent further analysis (ED 1133, GP-C 768). Patients consulting the GP-C were significantly older (58.9 vs. 43.8 years), more often female (63.5 vs. 46.9%) and presented with non-injury related medical problems (93 vs. 55.6%) in comparison with patients at the ED. Independent determining factors for ED consultation were injury, male gender and younger age. Walk-in distribution in both settings was equal over a period of 24 hours and most common during daytime hours (65%).Outpatient care was predominant in both settings but significantly more so at the GP-C (79.9 vs. 85.7%).ConclusionsWe observed substantial differences between the two emergency settings in a non gate-keeping health care system. Knowledge of the distribution of diagnoses, their therapy, of diagnostic measures and of the factors which determine the patients' choice of the ED or the GP-C is essential for the efficient allocation of resources and the reduction of costs.