Views and experiences of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners with collaborative practice in primary health care – an integrative review

Abstract

BackgroundThis integrative review synthesises research studies that have investigated the perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in primary health care. The aggregation of evidence on barriers and facilitators to working collaboratively and experiences about the processes of collaboration is of value to understand success factors and factors that impede collaborative working relationships.MethodsAn integrative review, which used systematic review processes, was undertaken to summarise qualitative and quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2012. Databases searched were the Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Informit and ProQuest. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Study findings were extracted relating to a) barriers and facilitators to collaborative working and b) views and experiences about the process of collaboration. The findings were narratively synthesised, supported by tabulation.Results27 studies conducted in seven different countries met the inclusion criteria. Content analysis identified a number of barriers and facilitators of collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners. By means of data comparison five themes were developed in relation to perceptions and understanding of collaboration. Nurse practitioners and medical practitioners have differing views on the essentials of collaboration and on supervision and autonomous nurse practitioner practice. Medical practitioners who have a working experience with NPs express more positive attitudes towards collaboration. Both professional groups report concerns and negative experiences with collaborative practice but also value certain advantages of collaboration.ConclusionsThe review shows that working in collaboration is a slow progression. Exposure to working together helps to overcome professional hurdles, dispel concerns and provide clarity around roles and the meaning of collaboration of NPs and MPs. Guidelines on liability and better funding strategies are necessary to facilitate collaborative practice whether barriers lie in individual behaviours or in broader policies.

Nurse Practitioner–Physician Comanagement: A Theoretical Model to Alleviate Primary Care Strain

“…9 In addition to national or state-based legislation that defines the nurse practitioner scope of practice, nurse practitioner responsibilities are often determined by organizational policy. 25 Despite the adoption of laws that allow nurse practitioners to practice independently of physician oversight, organizational or facility policy may inhibit and restrict a nurse practitioner-physician comanagement model. These restrictions are especially salient in the primary care clinics that adopt a physician-led hierarchical infrastructure in which the physician has the final decision-making authority.…”

“…The physician must have an understanding of the education, training, and scope of practice for nurse practitioners to build trust during allocation of tasks and responsibilities. 25 The optimal combination of …”

Financial viability, benefits and challenges of employing a nurse practitioner in general practice

“…20,21 Central to this issue is national debate about the financial viability of collaborative NP models in private practice. [22][23][24][25][26] There are many reasons for this, which primarily revolve around the inability of NP and medical practitioner to establish functional, bidirectional, collaborative arrangements 27 and the favouring of traditional hierarchical paradigms, as opposed to team-care environments, which share the financial and logistical burdens of care provision. 28 Anecdotal evidence from online forums, panel interviews and presentations at national conferences that cater to NP interests have revealed NP fears of leaving longstanding financially secure and senior public-sector positions, difficulties with practice startup costs v. cost recovery, and a perceived inability to translate public-sector speciality practice into private-sector generalist practice environments.…”

Life after Medicine: A Systematic Review of Studies of Physicians’ Adjustment to Retirement

“…We assessed articles for methodological quality using the Center for Evidence-based Management Appraisal Questions for a Survey Tool [18], and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Research Checklist [19]. Both tools have demonstrated reliability and validity when examining the views of healthcare professionals [20][21][22]. Two reviewers (AB and SW) independently assessed each article for methodological quality.…”