Cited by 494Nursing Roles and PracticesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Randomised controlled trial comparing cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners in primary care

Open access
Venning, P·2000·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners as first point of contact in primary care. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial of patients requesting an appointment the same day. SETTING: 20 general practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 1716 patients were eligible for randomisation, of whom 1316 agreed to randomisation and 1303 subsequently attended the clinic. Data were available for analysis on 1292 patients (651 general practitioner consultations and 641 nurse practitioner consultations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consultation process (length of consultation, examinations, prescriptions, referrals), patient satisfaction, health status, return clinic visits over two weeks, and costs. RESULTS: Nurse practitioner consultations were significantly longer than those of the general practitioners (11.57 v 7.28 min; adjusted difference 4. 20, 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.41), and nurses carried out more tests (8.7% v 5.6% of patients; odds ratio 1.66, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.66) and asked patients to return more often (37. 2% v 24.8%; 1.93, 1.36 to 2.73). There was no significant difference in patterns of prescribing or health status outcome for the two groups. Patients were more satisfied with nurse practitioner consultations (mean score 4.40 v 4.24 for general practitioners; adjusted difference 0.18, 0.092 to 0.257). This difference remained after consultation length was controlled for. There was no significant difference in health service costs (nurse practitioner 18.ll pound sterling v general practitioner 20.70 pound sterling adjusted difference 2.33 pound sterling - 1.62 pound sterling to 6.28 pound sterling). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical care an health service costs of nurse practitioners and general practitioners were similar. If nurse practitioners were able to maintain the benefits while reducing their return consultation rate or shortening consultation times, they could be more cost effective than general practitioners.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.320.7241.1048

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Department of Health. New opportunities for NHS Direct. London: DoH, 1999. (Press release 1999/0227.)
  2. Department of Health. Up to £30 million to develop 20 NHS fast access walk-in centres. London: DoH, 1999. (Press release 1999/0226.)
  3. Roberts C. The implication of variation in outcome between health pro- fessionals for the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials. Stat Med (in press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Venning, P.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Venning, P
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-04-15
Volume
320
Issue
7241
Pages
1048-1053
ISSN
0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2139063638
Cited by
494
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 11
FWCI
66.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Research and Development
  • Wellcome Trust (045384)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
nurse practitioners, general practitioners, cost-effectiveness, primary care, same-day appointments, consultation time, patient satisfaction, return visits, drug prescribing, health care costs, nurse-led primary care
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Cost-Benefit Analysis, England, Family Practice, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Middle Aged, Nurse Practitioners, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Professional Practice, Recurrence, Referral and Consultation, Time Factors, Wales, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review