CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 166Nursing Roles and PracticesInterprofessional Education and CollaborationHealthcare Policy and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of Nonphysician Clinicians

Laurant, Miranda, Harmsen, Mirjam, Wollersheim, Hub, Grol, Richard, Faber, Marjan, Sibbald, Bonnie·2009·Medical Care Research and Review
DOI 10.1177/1077558709346277
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Health care is changing rapidly. Unacceptable variations in service access and quality of health care and pressures to contain costs have led to the redefinition of professional roles. The roles of nonphysician clinicians (nurses, physician assistants, and pharmacists) have been extended to the medical domain. It is expected that such revision of roles will improve health care effectiveness and efficiency. The evidence suggests that nonphysician clinicians working as substitutes or supplements for physicians in defined areas of care can maintain and often improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients. The effect on health care costs is mixed, with savings dependent on the context of care and specific nature of role revision. The evidence base underpinning these conclusions is strongest for nurses with a marked paucity of research into pharmacists and physician assistants. More robust evaluative studies into role revision are needed, particularly with regard to economic impacts, before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1077558709346277

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 69 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 2004, Trends in the physician assistant profession, 1991-2003
  2. 2008, The physician-PA team
  3. 2006, Factsheet: Frequently asked questions about nurse practitioners
  4. 2009, Nurse practitioners in primary care. Policy Monograph of the American College of Physicians (APC)
  5. 2006, Nurse practitioners 2006: The results of a survey of nurse practitioners conducted on behalf of the RCN nurse practitioner Association
  6. 2001, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD001907
  7. 2007, Medisch Contact, 61, 1652
  8. 1995, Nursing Research, 44, 332
  9. 2000, Determining skill mix in the health workforce: Guidelines for managers and health professionals (Document OSD Discussion Paper
  10. 2004, British Journal of General Practice, 54, 374
  11. 2007, Overview of nurse practitioner scopes of practice in the United States: Discussion
  12. 1995, Hospital clinical pharmacy research in the UK: A review and annotated bibliography
  13. 2002, Extending independent nurse prescribing with the NHS in England
  14. 2006, Modernising nursing careers
  15. 2008, The complexities of physician supply and demand: Projections through 2025
  16. 2003, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD004359
  17. 2007, Evaluation framework of physician assistants: Instruments, outcomes and limitations
  18. 2006, Journal of Family Practice, 55, 305
  19. 2007, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD002214
  20. 2002, American Journal of Managed Care, 8, 613
  21. 2006, British Journal of General Practice, 56, 530
  22. Khan, K.S., ter Riet, G., Popay, J., Nixon, J. & Kleijen, J. ( 2001). STAGE II Conducting the review. PHASE 5 Study quality assessments. In Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (Ed.), Undertaking systematic reviews for research on effectiveness (pp. 1-20). York, UK: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.
  23. 2001, Journal of Allied Health, 30, 146
  24. 2007, Changes in skill mix: The impact of adding nurses to the primary care team
  25. 2009, Revision of professional roles and quality improvement, a review of evidence
  26. 2002, Huisarts en Wetenschap, 45, 652
  27. 2004, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD001271
  28. 2003, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD003286
  29. 2001, The effectiveness of specific epilepsy services (West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Group Report)
  30. 2007, Nieuwe Geneesmiddelenwet [New medicinal products]
  31. 1996, Washington state ARNPs attitudes about expanding their prescriptive authority to include schedule two-four medications. Unpublished master’s project
  32. 2006, Journal Advanced Nursing, 57, 172
  33. 2005, Competencies in nursing: Nurse practitioner, an RCN guide to nurse practitioner role, competencies, and programme approval
  34. 2001, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD000994
  35. 1975, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 108, 991
  36. 1998, British Journal General Practice, 48, 1070
  37. 1999, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD000349
  38. 2008, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47, 672
  39. 2005, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD003638
  40. 1999, Australian Family Physician, 28, 349
  41. 2006, Huisarts en Wetenschap, 49, 632

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 166

Related

Metadata

Authors
Laurant, M., Harmsen, M., Wollersheim, H., Grol, R., Faber, M., & Sibbald, B.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Medical Care Research and Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2009-10-30
Volume
66
Issue
6_suppl
Pages
36S-89S
ISSN
  • 1077-5587 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6801
DOI
10.1177/1077558709346277
OpenAlex
W2129916293
Cited by
166
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 9
FWCI
13.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Medical Care Research and Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
non-physician clinicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, professional role expansion, health care costs, quality of care, health care access, health care delivery
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Personnel, Health Policy, Health Services, Humans, Pharmacists, Physician's Role, Quality of Health Care

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