Nurse led follow up and conventional medical follow up in management of patients with lung cancer: randomised trial. Primary care outcomes in patients treated by nurse practitioners or physicians: a randomized trial. Nurse management of patients with minor illnesses in general practice: multicentre, randomised controlled trial. A randomised controlled crossover trial of nurse practitioner versus doctor led outpatient care in a bronchiectasis clinic. Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting "same day" consultations in primary care. Nurse-led follow-up on demand or by a physician after breast cancer surgery: a randomised study. A nurse practitioner as the first point of contact for urgent medical problems in a general practice setting. Diabetes care from diagnosis: effects of training in patient-centred care on beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of primary care professionals. Substitution of a nursing-led inpatient unit for acute services: randomized controlled trial of outcomes and cost of nursing-led intermediate care. A comparison of resource utilization in nurse practitioners and physicians. Effect of a primary care based epilepsy specialist nurse service on quality of care from the patients' perspective: results at two-years follow-up. Safety and effectiveness of nurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care: randomised controlled trial. The South Wiltshire Out of Hours Project (SWOOP) Group.
To assess the effectiveness of nurse led follow up in the management of patients with lung cancer.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Specialist cancer hospital and three cancer units in southeastern England.
                203 patients with lung cancer who had completed their initial treatment and were expected to survive for at least 3 months.
                Nurse led follow up of outpatients compared with conventional medical follow up. Outcome measures: Quality of life, patients' satisfaction, general practitioners' satisfaction, survival, symptom-free survival, progression-free survival, use of resources, and comparison of costs.
                Patient acceptability of nurse led follow up was high: 75% (203/271) of eligible patients consented to participate. Patients who received the intervention had less severe dyspnoea at 3 months (P=0.03) and had better scores for emotional functioning (P=0.03) and less peripheral neuropathy (P=0.05) at 12 months. Intervention group patients scored significantly better in most satisfaction subscales at 3, 6, and 12 months (P<0.01 for all subscales at 3 months). No significant differences in general practitioners' overall satisfaction were seen between the two groups. No differences were seen in survival or rates of objective progression, although nurses recorded progression of symptoms sooner than doctors (P=0.01). Intervention patients were more likely to die at home rather than in a hospital or hospice (P=0.04), attended fewer consultations with a hospital doctor during the first 3 months (P=0.004), had fewer radiographs during the first 6 months (P=0.04), and had more radiotherapy within the first 3 months (P=0.01). No other differences were seen between the two groups in terms of the use of resources.
                Nurse led follow up was acceptable to lung cancer patients and general practitioners and led to positive outcomes. Studies have suggested that the quality of primary care delivered by nurse practitioners is equal to that of physicians. However, these studies did not measure nurse practitioner practices that had the same degree of independence as the comparison physician practices, nor did previous studies provide direct comparison of outcomes for patients with nurse practitioner or physician providers.
                To compare outcomes for patients randomly assigned to nurse practitioners or physicians for primary care follow-up and ongoing care after an emergency department or urgent care visit.
                Randomized trial conducted between August 1995 and October 1997, with patient interviews at 6 months after initial appointment and health services utilization data recorded at 6 months and 1 year after initial appointment.
                Four community-based primary care clinics (17 physicians) and 1 primary care clinic (7 nurse practitioners) at an urban academic medical center.
                Of 3397 adults originally screened, 1316 patients (mean age, 45.9 years; 76.8% female; 90.3% Hispanic) who had no regular source of care and kept their initial primary care appointment were enrolled and randomized with either a nurse practitioner (n = 806) or physician (n = 510).
                Patient satisfaction after initial appointment (based on 15-item questionnaire); health status (Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36), satisfaction, and physiologic test results 6 months later; and service utilization (obtained from computer records) for 1 year after initial appointment, compared by type of provider.
                No significant differences were found in patients' health status (nurse practitioners vs physicians) at 6 months (P = .92). Physiologic test results for patients with diabetes (P = .82) or asthma (P = .77) were not different. For patients with hypertension, the diastolic value was statistically significantly lower for nurse practitioner patients (82 vs 85 mm Hg; P = .04). No significant differences were found in health services utilization after either 6 months or 1 year. There were no differences in satisfaction ratings following the initial appointment (P = .88 for overall satisfaction). Satisfaction ratings at 6 months differed for 1 of 4 dimensions measured (provider attributes), with physicians rated higher (4.2 vs 4.1 on a scale where 5 = excellent; P = .05).
                In an ambulatory care situation in which patients were randomly assigned to either nurse practitioners or physicians, and where nurse practitioners had the same authority, responsibilities, productivity and administrative requirements, and patient population as primary care physicians, patients' outcomes were comparable. To assess the acceptability and safety of a minor illness service led by practice nurses in general practice.
                Multicentre, randomised controlled trial.
                5 general practices in south east London and Kent representing semi-rural, suburban, and urban settings.
                1815 patients requesting and offered same day appointments by receptionists.
                Patients were assigned to treatment by either a specially trained nurse or a general practitioner. Patients seen by a nurse were referred to a general practitioner when appropriate.
                The general satisfaction of the patients as measured by the consultation satisfaction questionnaire. Other outcome measures included the length of the consultation, number of prescriptions written, rates of referral to general practitioners, patient's reported health status, patient's anticipated behaviour in seeking health care in future, and number of patients who returned to the surgery, visits to accident and emergency, and out of hours calls to doctors.
                Patients were very satisfied with both nurses and doctors, but they were significantly more satisfied with their consultations with nurses (mean (SD) score of satisfaction 78.6 (16. 0) of 100 points for nurses v 76.4 (17.8) for doctors; 95% confidence interval for difference between means -4.07 to -0.38). Consultations with nurses took about 10 minutes compared with about 8 minutes for consultations with doctors. Nurses and doctors wrote prescriptions for a similar proportion of patients (nurses 481/736 (65.4%) v doctors 518/816 (63.5%)). 577/790 (73%) patients seen by nurses were managed without any input from doctors.
                Practice nurses seem to offer an effective service for patients with minor illnesses who request same day appointments. With the decrease in junior doctor hours, the advent of specialist registrars, and the availability of highly trained and experienced nursing personnel, the service needs of patients with chronic respiratory diseases attending routine outpatient clinics may be better provided by appropriately trained nurse practitioners.
                A randomised controlled crossover trial was used to compare nurse practitioner led care with doctor led care in a bronchiectasis outpatient clinic. Eighty patients were recruited and randomised to receive 1 year of nurse led care and 1 year of doctor led care in random order. Patients were followed up for 2 years to ensure patient safety and acceptability and to assess differences in lung function. Outcome measures were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), 12 minute walk test, health related quality of life, and resource use.
                The mean difference in FEV(1) was 0.2% predicted (95% confidence interval -1.6 to 2.0%, p=0.83). There were no significant differences in the other clinical or health related quality of life measures. Nurse led care resulted in significantly increased resource use compared with doctor led care (mean difference pound 1497, 95% confidence interval pound 688 to pound 2674, p<0.001), a large part of which resulted from the number and duration of hospital admissions. The mean difference in resource use was greater in the first year ( pound 2625) than in the second year ( pound 411).
                Nurse practitioner led care for stable patients within a chronic chest clinic is safe and is as effective as doctor led care, but may use more resources. To ascertain any differences between care from nurse practitioners and that from general practitioners for patients seeking "same day" consultations in primary care.
                Randomised controlled trial with patients allocated by one of two randomisation schemes (by day or within day).
                10 general practices in south Wales and south west England.
                1368 patients requesting same day consultations.
                Patient satisfaction, resolution of symptoms and concerns, care provided (prescriptions, investigations, referrals, recall, and length of consultation), information provided to patients, and patients' intentions for seeking care in the future.
                Generally patients consulting nurse practitioners were significantly more satisfied with their care, although for adults this difference was not observed in all practices. For children, the mean difference between general and nurse practitioner in percentage satisfaction score was -4.8 (95% confidence interval -6.8 to -2.8), and for adults the differences ranged from -8.8 (-13.6 to -3.9) to 3.8 (-3.3 to 10.8) across the practices. Resolution of symptoms and concerns did not differ between the two groups (odds ratio 1.2 (95% confidence interval 0.8 to 1.8) for symptoms and 1.03 (0.8 to 1.4) for concerns). The number of prescriptions issued, investigations ordered, referrals to secondary care, and reattendances were similar between the two groups. However, patients managed by nurse practitioners reported receiving significantly more information about their illnesses and, in all but one practice, their consultations were significantly longer.
                This study supports the wider acceptance of the role of nurse practitioners in providing care to patients requesting same day consultations. The value of routine follow-up with frequent visits to a breast cancer specialist-both in terms of detection of recurrence and patient satisfaction-has been questioned. The aim of this study was to compare nurse-led follow-up on demand versus physician follow-up after breast cancer treatment with regards to patients' well-being, satisfaction, access to medical care and medical safety. Two hundred and sixty-four consecutively selected women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, classified as UICC stage I or stage II, were randomised to follow-up at two hospitals in Sweden, either by routine medical follow-up, the physician group (PG, n=131), or on demand by a specialist nurse, the nurse group (NG, n=133). Measures were done at baseline and twice a year over a period of 5 years by means of a questionnaire containing the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD), and the Satisfaction and Accessibility (SaaC) scale. Number of contacts with the health care services, number of diagnostic procedures, and time to recurrence or death were monitored. The ratings of HAD and SaaC did not show any statistically significant differences between the groups. The levels of anxiety and depression were generally low and levels of patient satisfaction high. There were no differences between the groups concerning time to recurrence or death. This study indicates that women with breast cancer in stages I to II can be followed up by a specialist nurse with high patient satisfaction and good medical safety. The aim of this study was to examine the suitability of nurse practitioners for assessing and managing urgent clinical problems presenting in primary care.
                Patients registered at a suburban group practice presenting with acute medical problems were offered the choice of seeing a GP or a nurse practitioner. The outcomes of 1000 consultations were analysed by recording the repeat consultation rate, the prescription-issue rate and the rate of referral to secondary care, as well as investigating patient satisfaction and the number of dysfunctional consultations and misdiagnoses.
                Patients reported a high level of satisfaction with nurse practitioner consultations, and there were no recorded instances of medical sequelae due to poor diagnosis or mismanagement. Nurse and doctors saw patients with similar age and sex distributions, but the results suggested that there was a significant difference between the morbidity of problems seen. There was also a difference in the outcomes of repeat consultation rate and the prescription issue rate, although there was little difference in the rate of referral for secondary care.
                As patients expressed a high level of satisfaction with the nurse practitioner, this suggests that given the choice, patients in primary care can safely and effectively 'self triage' themselves between GPs and nurse practitioners. In a randomised trial, general practitioners and nurses in 21 practices were trained in patient-centred consulting and use of materials for people with Type 2 diabetes (GPs 0.5 days; nurses 1.5 days; two optional follow-up half-days). Twenty practices formed the comparison group. Professional beliefs, attitudes and behaviour were measured (pre-trial, close-of-course and end-of-trial), supported by patient reports of nurse behaviour (141 trained: 108 comparison patients, 1 year after diagnosis). A total of 49 practice nurses responded (29 trained; 20 comparison). Trained nurses rated relative importance of patient-centred to professional-centred care as greater than comparison nurses. Trained nurses became less keen on the approach during the trial, and perceived time constraints persisted. Patients diagnosed later in the study were less likely to recognise intervention materials. Trained nurses rated delivery of important aspects of care and satisfaction with style of care as lower than comparison nurses, but patients were more positive about delivery of care from trained than comparison nurses. Although nurses rated patient-centred care as important, whether or not they had been trained as part of the trial, the short, generalizable training programme significantly reduced nurse perceptions of their ability to deliver it. Nonetheless, patients reported that important aspects of diabetes care were delivered more if their nurses had been trained in patient-centred consulting. This raises issues concerning measurement scales completed by trained professionals. To evaluate the outcome and cost of transfer to a nursing-led inpatient unit for 'intermediate care'. The unit was designed to replace a period of care in acute hospital wards and promote recovery before discharge to the community.
                Randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes of care on a nursing-led inpatient unit with the system of consultant-managed care on a range of acute hospital wards.
                hospital wards in an acute inner-London National Health Service trust.
                175 patients assessed to be medically stable but requiring further inpatient care, referred to the unit from acute wards.
                89 patients were randomly allocated to care on the unit (nursing-led care with no routine medical intervention) and 86 to usual hospital care.
                Length of hospital stay, discharge destination, functional dependence (Barthel index) and direct healthcare costs.
                Care in the unit had no significant impact on discharge destination or dependence. Length of inpatient stay was significantly increased for the treatment group (P=0.036; 95% confidence interval 1.1-20.7 days). The daily cost of care was lower on the unit, but the mean total cost was pound sterlings 1044 higher-although the difference from the control was not significant (P=0.150; 95% confidence interval - pound sterlings 382 to pound sterlings 2471).
                The nursing-led inpatient unit led to longer hospital stays. Since length of stay is the main driver of costs, this model of care-at least as implemented here-may be more costly. However, since the unit may substitute for both secondary and primary care, longer-term follow-up is needed to determine whether patients are better prepared for discharge under this model of care, resulting in reduced primary-care costs. Nurse practitioners increasingly provide primary care in a variety of settings. Little is known about how resource utilization for patients assigned to nurse practitioners compares with that for patients assigned to physicians.
                To compare health care resource utilization for adult patients assigned to a nurse practitioner with that for patients assigned to a resident or attending physician.
                Prospective, quasi-randomized study.
                Primary care clinic at a Veterans Affairs medical center.
                450 new primary care patients: 150 were assigned to a nurse practitioner, 150 to a resident physician, and 150 to an attending physician.
                We collected data on laboratory and radiologic testing, specialty care, primary care, emergency or walk-in visits, and hospitalizations over a 1-year period. We also collected information on baseline chronic illnesses, blood pressure, and weight.
                Resource utilization for patients assigned to a nurse practitioner was higher than that for patients assigned to a resident in 14 of 17 utilization measures (3 were statistically significant) and higher in 10 of 17 measures when compared with patients assigned to an attending physician (3 were statistically significant). None of the utilization measures for patients in the nurse practitioner group was significantly lower than those for either physician group.
                In a primary care setting, nurse practitioners may utilize more health care resources than physicians. Epilepsy specialist nurses have the potential to improve the quality of care of community-based patients with epilepsy, although evidence of their effectiveness is limited by the lack of formal or long-term evaluation. Results of a controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of a primary care based specialist nurse-led service suggested improvements in communication and satisfaction but not health status at one-year follow-up. A second follow-up was conducted to assess the effects after two years. Patients who reported having seen the nurse at least once in the two years ('users') were compared with those who had not ('non-users'). Comparisons between users and non-users were adjusted for baseline differences. Results were based on 40% of all 595 adult patients known to have epilepsy in 14 general practices and who answered questionnaires at baseline and two years later. The new epilepsy service was used more by those with greatest needs for care. Users of the new service were significantly more likely than non-users to have discussed 8 of 11 topics asked about epilepsy [odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 2.42 to 7.91] with their general practitioner (GP), and 2 of the 11 topics with the hospital doctor (ORs 5.59, 5. 74). Service users were significantly less likely than non-users to feel their GP knew enough about epilepsy [OR 0.27, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.74-0.98], and significantly more likely to report epilepsy as having an adverse impact on 3 of 10 areas of everyday life (ORs ranging from 2.09 to 2.50). Users were more likely than non-users to have seen their GP for any reason in the previous year and to change their medication from use of more than one antiepileptic drug to monotherapy, although findings were not significant. Results suggest that the epilepsy specialist nurse service is not a cost-reducing substitute, particularly for general practitioner care, but it appears to improve communication and prescribing of monotherapy, and increases access for the most needy. The service may, however, have an adverse impact on patients' perceptions of the effects of epilepsy on aspects of everyday life.
                Copyright 1999 BEA Trading Ltd. To determine the safety and effectiveness of nurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care by investigating adverse events and the management of calls.
                Block randomised controlled trial over a year of 156 matched pairs of days and weekends in 26 blocks. One of each matched pair was randomised to receive the intervention.
                One 55 member general practice cooperative serving 97 000 registered patients in Wiltshire.
                All patients contacting the out of hours service or about whom contact was made during specified times over the trial year.
                A nurse telephone consultation service integrated within a general practice cooperative. The out of hours period was 615 pm to 1115 pm from Monday to Friday, 1100 am to 1115 pm on Saturday, and 800 am to 1115 pm on Sunday. Experienced and specially trained nurses received, assessed, and managed calls from patients or their carers. Management options included telephone advice; referral to the general practitioner on duty (for telephone advice, an appointment at a primary care centre, or a home visit); referral to the emergency service or advice to attend accident and emergency. Calls were managed with the help of decision support software.
                Deaths within seven days of a contact with the out of hours service; emergency hospital admissions within 24 hours and within three days of contact; attendance at accident and emergency within three days of a contact; number and management of calls in each arm of the trial.
                14 492 calls were received during the specified times in the trial year (7308 in the control arm and 7184 in the intervention arm) concerning 10 134 patients (10.4% of the registered population). There were no substantial differences in the age and sex of patients in the intervention and control groups, though male patients were underrepresented overall. Reasons for calling the service were consistent with previous studies. Nurses managed 49.8% of calls during intervention periods without referral to a general practitioner. A 69% reduction in telephone advice from a general practitioner, together with a 38% reduction in patient attendance at primary care centres and a 23% reduction in home visits was observed during intervention periods. Statistical equivalence was observed in the number of deaths within seven days, in the number of emergency hospital admissions, and in the number of attendances at accident and emergency departments. Conclusions Nurse telephone consultation produced substantial changes in call management, reducing overall workload of general practitioners by 50% while allowing callers faster access to health information and advice. It was not associated with an increase in the number of adverse events. This model of out of hours primary care is safe and effective.
The findings suggest that appropriately trained nurses can produce as high quality care as primary care doctors and achieve as good health outcomes for patients. However, this conclusion should be viewed with caution given that only one study was powered to assess equivalence of care, many studies had methodological limitations, and patient follow-up was generally 12 months or less. 
While doctor-nurse substitution has the potential to reduce doctors' workload and direct healthcare costs, achieving such reductions depends on the particular context of care. Doctors' workload may remain unchanged either because nurses are deployed to meet previously unmet patient need or because nurses generate demand for care where previously there was none. Savings in cost depend on the magnitude of the salary differential between doctors and nurses, and may be offset by the lower productivity of nurses compared to doctors.