CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 310Nursing Roles and PracticesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesNursing education and management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Substitution of physicians by nurses in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Martínez-González, Nahara Anani, Djalali, Sima, Tandjung, Ryan, Huber-Geismann, Flore, Markun, Stefan, Wensing, Michel, Rosemann, Thomas·2014·BMC Health Services Research
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-214PMC PMC4065389
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: In many countries, substitution of physicians by nurses has become common due to the shortage of physicians and the need for high-quality, affordable care, especially for chronic and multi-morbid patients. We examined the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and care costs of physician-nurse substitution in primary care. Methods: We systematically searched OVID Medline and Embase, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, up to August 2012; selected and critically appraised published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared nurse-led care with care by primary care physicians on patient satisfaction, Quality of Life (QoL), hospital admission, mortality and costs of healthcare. We assessed the individual study risk of bias, calculated the study-specific and pooled relative risks (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD); and performed fixed-effects meta-analyses. Results: 24 RCTs (38,974 participants) and 2 economic studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analyses showed higher overall scores of patient satisfaction with nurse-led care (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.23), in RCTs of single contact or urgent care, short (less than 6 months) follow-up episodes and in small trials (N ≤ 200). Nurse-led care was effective at reducing the overall risk of hospital admission (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91), mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96), in RCTs of on-going or non-urgent care, longer (at least 12 months) follow-up episodes and in larger (N > 200) RCTs. Higher quality RCTs (with better allocation concealment and less attrition) showed higher rates of hospital admissions and mortality with nurse-led care albeit less or not significant. The results seemed more consistent across nurse practitioners than with registered or licensed nurses. The effects of nurse-led care on QoL and costs were difficult to interpret due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, valuation of resources and the small number of studies. Conclusions: The available evidence continues to be limited by the quality of the research considered. Nurse-led care seems to have a positive effect on patient satisfaction, hospital admission and mortality. This important finding should be confirmed and the determinants of this effect should be assessed in further, larger and more methodically rigorous research.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-14-214

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 PRISMA Flow Diagram - study selection process.
Figure 1 PRISMA Flow Diagram - study selection process.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Effects of physician-nurse substitution on patient satisfaction in A) all trials and by B) subgroups. Legend. CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; N, total number of patients; SMD, standard mean differences; SD, standard deviation; Chi2, statistical test for heterogeneity; P, p-value of Chi2 (evidence of heterogeneity of intervention effects); I2, amount of heterogeneity between trials; Overall P, p-value for significance of effects of interventions; NLC, Nurse-Led Care; PLC, Physician-Led Care; NP, Nurse Practitioner; NP+, Nurse Practitioner with higher degree/courses/specialisation; RN, Registered Nurse. *All trials had ≥20% attrition in at least one arm.
Figure 2 Effects of physician-nurse substitution on patient satisfaction in A) all trials and by B) subgroups. Legend. CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; N, total number of patients; SMD, standard mean differences; SD, standard deviation; Chi2, statistical test for heterogeneity; P, p-value of Chi2 (evidence of heterogeneity of intervention effects); I2, amount of heterogeneity between trials; Overall P, p-value for significance of effects of interventions; NLC, Nurse-Led Care; PLC, Physician-Led Care; NP, Nurse Practitioner; NP+, Nurse Practitioner with higher degree/courses/specialisation; RN, Registered Nurse. *All trials had ≥20% attrition in at least one arm.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Effects of physician-nurse substitution on hospital admissions in A) all trials and by B) subgroups. Legend. CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; N, number of patients with events; Total, total number of patients per group; RR, Relative Risk; Chi2, statistical test for heterogeneity; P, p-value of Chi2 (evidence of heterogeneity of intervention effects); I2, amount of heterogeneity between trials; Overall P, p-value for significance of effects of interventions; NLC, Nurse-Led Care; PLC, Physician-Led Care; NP, Nurse Practitioner; NP+, Nurse Practitioner with higher degree/courses/specialisation; RN, Registered Nurse. *Two RCTs provided data for different follow-up episodes and were incorporated accordingly: Andryukhin et al. (2010) [46] reported data at 6 and 18 months and Mundinger et al. (2000) [22,24] reported data at 6 and 12 months.
Figure 3 Effects of physician-nurse substitution on hospital admissions in A) all trials and by B) subgroups. Legend. CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; N, number of patients with events; Total, total number of patients per group; RR, Relative Risk; Chi2, statistical test for heterogeneity; P, p-value of Chi2 (evidence of heterogeneity of intervention effects); I2, amount of heterogeneity between trials; Overall P, p-value for significance of effects of interventions; NLC, Nurse-Led Care; PLC, Physician-Led Care; NP, Nurse Practitioner; NP+, Nurse Practitioner with higher degree/courses/specialisation; RN, Registered Nurse. *Two RCTs provided data for different follow-up episodes and were incorporated accordingly: Andryukhin et al. (2010) [46] reported data at 6 and 18 months and Mundinger et al. (2000) [22,24] reported data at 6 and 12 months.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Effects of physician-nurse substitution on mortality in A) all trials and by B) subgroups. Legend. CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; N, number of patients with events; Total, total number of patients per group; RR, Relative Risk; Chi2, statistical test for heterogeneity; P, p-value of Chi2 (evidence of heterogeneity of intervention effects); I2, amount of heterogeneity between trials; Overall P, p-value for significance of effects of interventions; NLC, Nurse-Led Care; PLC, Physician-Led Care; NP, Nurse Practitioner; NP+, Nurse Practitioner with higher degree/courses/specialisation; RN, Registered Nurse. *Andryukhin et al. (2010) [46] reported data at 6 and 18 months and was incorporated accordingly.
Figure 4 Effects of physician-nurse substitution on mortality in A) all trials and by B) subgroups. Legend. CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; N, number of patients with events; Total, total number of patients per group; RR, Relative Risk; Chi2, statistical test for heterogeneity; P, p-value of Chi2 (evidence of heterogeneity of intervention effects); I2, amount of heterogeneity between trials; Overall P, p-value for significance of effects of interventions; NLC, Nurse-Led Care; PLC, Physician-Led Care; NP, Nurse Practitioner; NP+, Nurse Practitioner with higher degree/courses/specialisation; RN, Registered Nurse. *Andryukhin et al. (2010) [46] reported data at 6 and 18 months and was incorporated accordingly.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Comparison of individual trial estimates of the effect of physician-nurse substitution on Quality of Life. Legend. A pooled estimate was not possible due to the various scales used, grading scores and measurements. SMD, standard mean difference; SE, standard error; N, total number of patients per group; CI, confidence interval; NLC, Nurse-Led Care; PLC, Physician-Led Care.
Figure 5 Comparison of individual trial estimates of the effect of physician-nurse substitution on Quality of Life. Legend. A pooled estimate was not possible due to the various scales used, grading scores and measurements. SMD, standard mean difference; SE, standard error; N, total number of patients per group; CI, confidence interval; NLC, Nurse-Led Care; PLC, Physician-Led Care.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Comparison of individual trial estimates of the effect of physician-nurse substitution on cost of care. Legend. A pooled estimate was not possible due to the variety in approaches, currency and indicators used to value resources and to calculate costs. Abbreviations: EUR, Euro; GBP, pound sterling; DCC, direct costs for consultations; DPCC, direct and productivity costs for consultations; general physicians (GP); EMP, employment; EMPO, employment by others; LoC, length of consultations; TCT, total consultation time; TP, time to prescribe; FTF, face-to-face; TT, total time; SD, standard deviation; N, total number of patients per group; SMD, standard mean difference; CI, confidence interval; NLC, Nurse-Led Care; PLC, Physician-Led Care. *EUR; DPCC: GPs salary in EMP and EMPO; p = 0.65. †EUR; DCC based on resource use, follow-up, LoC /salary; p = 0.0005. ‡EUR; DCC: resource use, follow-up, LoC /salary; p = 0.0001. §EUR; all patients: DPCC: GP salary in EMP and EMPO; p = 0.0009. ║EUR; <65 years: DPCC: GP salary in EMP and EMPO; p < 0.0001. ¶GBP; return consultations, FTF time: NP = TCT - TP (GP signed); GP = TCT - TP; p = 0.11. #GBP; initial consultations, TT: NP = TCT + TP (GP signed); GP = TCT + TP; p = 0.11. **GBP; initial consultations, FTF time: NP = TCT – TP (GP signed); GP = TCT + TP; p = 0.07. ††GBP; return consultations, TT: NP = TCT – TP (GP signed); GP = TCT + TP; p = 0.16. ‡‡GBP; costs of drugs; p < 0.0001. §§GBP; mean QALYs at 48 months: SF-36 overall QoL scores; p = 0.0006. ║║EUR; DPCC: resource use, follow-up, LoC and salary; p = 0.09. ¶¶EUR; DC: resource use, follow-up, LoC and salary; p = 0.04. ##EUR; <65 years of age; DPCC: resource use, follow-up, LoC and salary; p = 0.10.
Figure 6 Comparison of individual trial estimates of the effect of physician-nurse substitution on cost of care. Legend. A pooled estimate was not possible due to the variety in approaches, currency and indicators used to value resources and to calculate costs. Abbreviations: EUR, Euro; GBP, pound sterling; DCC, direct costs for consultations; DPCC, direct and productivity costs for consultations; general physicians (GP); EMP, employment; EMPO, employment by others; LoC, length of consultations; TCT, total consultation time; TP, time to prescribe; FTF, face-to-face; TT, total time; SD, standard deviation; N, total number of patients per group; SMD, standard mean difference; CI, confidence interval; NLC, Nurse-Led Care; PLC, Physician-Led Care. *EUR; DPCC: GPs salary in EMP and EMPO; p = 0.65. †EUR; DCC based on resource use, follow-up, LoC /salary; p = 0.0005. ‡EUR; DCC: resource use, follow-up, LoC /salary; p = 0.0001. §EUR; all patients: DPCC: GP salary in EMP and EMPO; p = 0.0009. ║EUR; <65 years: DPCC: GP salary in EMP and EMPO; p < 0.0001. ¶GBP; return consultations, FTF time: NP = TCT - TP (GP signed); GP = TCT - TP; p = 0.11. #GBP; initial consultations, TT: NP = TCT + TP (GP signed); GP = TCT + TP; p = 0.11. **GBP; initial consultations, FTF time: NP = TCT – TP (GP signed); GP = TCT + TP; p = 0.07. ††GBP; return consultations, TT: NP = TCT – TP (GP signed); GP = TCT + TP; p = 0.16. ‡‡GBP; costs of drugs; p < 0.0001. §§GBP; mean QALYs at 48 months: SF-36 overall QoL scores; p = 0.0006. ║║EUR; DPCC: resource use, follow-up, LoC and salary; p = 0.09. ¶¶EUR; DC: resource use, follow-up, LoC and salary; p = 0.04. ##EUR; <65 years of age; DPCC: resource use, follow-up, LoC and salary; p = 0.10.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. World Health Organization: World Health Statistics 2012: Indicator Compendium. 2012, Geneva, Switzerland: WHO
  2. Review Manager: (RevMan) [Computer program] Version 5.2.4 for Windows edition. 2012, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, http://tech.cochrane.org/revman.
  3. Winter C: Quality health care: patient assessment. 1981, MSc Thesis: California State University

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 310

Related

Metadata

Authors
Martínez-González, N. A., Djalali, S., Tandjung, R., Huber-Geismann, F., Markun, S., Wensing, M., & Rosemann, T.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Zurich (CH)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Rosemann, Thomas
ORCID
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-05-12
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
214-214
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1472-6963-14-214
PMC
PMC4065389
OpenAlex
W2138392956
Cited by
310
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 2
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
Keywords
nurse-led care, primary care, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, licensed nurses, patient satisfaction, hospitalization, mortality, quality of life, health care costs, physician shortage
MeSH terms
Workforce, Clinical Competence, Delivery of Health Care, Hospitalization, Humans, Medical Staff, Hospital, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Personnel Staffing and Scheduling, Primary Health Care, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Satisfaction, Personnel Delegation

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