OBJECTIVE — To systematically review the incidence of posttransplantation diabetes (PTD), risk factors for its development, prognostic implications, and optimal management. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS — We searched databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and others) from inception to September 2000, reviewed bibliographies in reports retrieved, contacted transplantation experts, and reviewed specialty journals. Two reviewers independently determined report inclusion (original studies, in all languages, of PTD in adults with no history of diabetes before transplantation), assessed study methods, and extracted data using a standardized form. Meta-regression was used to explain between-study differences in incidence. RESULTS — Nineteen studies with 3,611 patients were included. The 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD is lower (10% in most studies) than it was 3 decades ago. The type of immunosuppression explained 74% of the variability in incidence (P 0.0004). Risk factors were patient age, nonwhite ethnicity, glucocorticoid treatment for rejection, and immunosuppression with high-dose cyclosporine and tacrolimus. PTD was associated with decreased graft and patient survival in earlier studies; later studies showed improved outcomes. Randomized trials of treatment regimens have not been conducted. CONCLUSIONS — Physicians should consider modification of immunosuppressive regimens to decrease the risk of PTD in high-risk transplant recipients. Randomized trials are needed to evaluate the use of oral glucose-lowering agents in transplant recipients, paying particular attention to interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. Diabetes Care 25:583–592, 2002

A systematic review of the literature

These guidelines have been replaced by British Guideline on the Management of Asthma. A national clinical guideline. Superseded By 2012 Revision Of 2008 Guideline: British Guideline on the Management of Asthma. Thorax 2008 May; 63(Suppl 4): 1–121.

/pdf/british-guideline-on-the-management-of-asthma-a-national-3q1wreyszl.pdf

British guideline on the management of asthma: A national clinical guideline

Objective: To determine whether nurse practitioners can provide care at first point of contact equivalent to doctors in a primary care setting. Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies. Data sources: Cochrane controlled trials register, specialist register of trials maintained by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, science citation index, database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, national research register, hand searches, and published bibliographies. Included studies: Randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies comparing nurse practitioners and doctors providing care at first point of contact for patients with undifferentiated health problems in a primary care setting and providing data on one or more of the following outcomes: patient satisfaction, health status, costs, and process of care. Results: 11 trials and 23 observational studies met all the inclusion criteria. Patients were more satisfied with care by a nurse practitioner (standardised mean difference 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.47). No differences in health status were found. Nurse practitioners had longer consultations (weighted mean difference 3.67 minutes, 2.05 to 5.29) and made more investigations (odds ratio 1.22, 1.02 to 1.46) than did doctors. No differences were found in prescriptions, return consultations, or referrals. Quality of care was in some ways better for nurse practitioner consultations. Conclusion: Increasing availability of nurse practitioners in primary care is likely to lead to high levels of patient satisfaction and high quality care. What is already known on this topic Nurse practitioners have existed in North America for many years An increasing number of such nurses are being employed in the United Kingdom in general practice, emergency departments, and other primary care settings Reviews suggest that nurse practitioners are equivalent to doctors on most variables studied, but the relevance of this in the context of the NHS is unclear What this study adds Patients are more satisfied with care from a nurse practitioner than from a doctor, with no difference in health outcomes Nurse practitioners provide longer consultations and carry out more investigations than doctors Most recent research has related to patients requesting same day appointments for minor illness, which is only a limited part of a doctor9s role

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/324/7341/819.full.pdf

Systematic review of whether nurse practitioners working in primary care can provide equivalent care to doctors

Background
Demand for primary care services has increased in developed countries due to population ageing, rising patient expectations, and reforms that shift care from hospitals to the community. At the same time, the supply of physicians is constrained and there is increasing pressure to contain costs. Shifting care from physicians to nurses is one possible response to these challenges. The expectation is that nurse-doctor substitution will reduce cost and physician workload while maintaining quality of care.

Objectives
Our aim was to evaluate the impact of doctor-nurse substitution in primary care on patient outcomes, process of care, and resource utilisation including cost. Patient outcomes included: morbidity; mortality; satisfaction; compliance; and preference. Process of care outcomes included: practitioner adherence to clinical guidelines; standards or quality of care; and practitioner health care activity (e.g. provision of advice). Resource utilisation was assessed by: frequency and length of consultations; return visits; prescriptions; tests and investigations; referral to other services; and direct or indirect costs.

Search methods
The following databases were searched for the period 1966 to 2002: Medline; Cinahl; Bids, Embase; Social Science Citation Index; British Nursing Index; HMIC; EPOC Register; and Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. Search terms specified the setting (primary care), professional (nurse), study design (randomised controlled trial, controlled before-and-after-study, interrupted time series), and subject (e.g. skill mix).

The searches for this review were conducted in 2002 and are now out-of-date and therefore the review findings should be used with caution. The review is currently being updated and the updated version should be published before the end of 2014.

Selection criteria
Studies were included if nurses were compared to doctors providing a similar primary health care service (excluding accident and emergency services). Primary care doctors included: general practitioners, family physicians, paediatricians, general internists or geriatricians. Primary care nurses included: practice nurses, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, or advanced practice nurses.

Data collection and analysis
Study selection and data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers with differences resolved through discussion. Meta-analysis was applied to outcomes for which there was adequate reporting of intervention effects from at least three randomised controlled trials. Semi-quantitative methods were used to synthesize other outcomes.

Main results
4253 articles were screened of which 25 articles, relating to 16 studies, met our inclusion criteria. In seven studies the nurse assumed responsibility for first contact and ongoing care for all presenting patients. The outcomes investigated varied across studies so limiting the opportunity for data synthesis. In general, no appreciable differences were found between doctors and nurses in health outcomes for patients, process of care, resource utilisation or cost.

In five studies the nurse assumed responsibility for first contact care for patients wanting urgent consultations during office hours or out-of-hours. Patient health outcomes were similar for nurses and doctors but patient satisfaction was higher with nurse-led care. Nurses tended to provide longer consultations, give more information to patients and recall patients more frequently than did doctors. The impact on physician workload and direct cost of care was variable.

In four studies the nurse took responsibility for the ongoing management of patients with particular chronic conditions. The outcomes investigated varied across studies so limiting the opportunity for data synthesis. In general, no appreciable differences were found between doctors and nurses in health outcomes for patients, process of care, resource utilisation or cost.

Authors' conclusions
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.

Substitution of doctors by nurses in primary care

Health workforce needs-based shortages and skill mix imbalances are significant health workforce challenges. Task shifting, defined as delegating tasks to existing or new cadres with either less training or narrowly tailored training, is a potential strategy to address these challenges. This study uses an economics perspective to review the skill mix literature to determine its strength of the evidence, identify gaps in the evidence, and to propose a research agenda. Studies primarily from low-income countries published between 2006 and September 2010 were found using Google Scholar and PubMed. Keywords included terms such as skill mix, task shifting, assistant medical officer, assistant clinical officer, assistant nurse, assistant pharmacist, and community health worker. Thirty-one studies were selected to analyze, based on the strength of evidence. First, the studies provide substantial evidence that task shifting is an important policy option to help alleviate workforce shortages and skill mix imbalances. For example, in Mozambique, surgically trained assistant medical officers, who were the key providers in district hospitals, produced similar patient outcomes at a significantly lower cost as compared to physician obstetricians and gynaecologists. Second, although task shifting is promising, it can present its own challenges. For example, a study analyzing task shifting in HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa noted quality and safety concerns, professional and institutional resistance, and the need to sustain motivation and performance. Third, most task shifting studies compare the results of the new cadre with the traditional cadre. Studies also need to compare the new cadre's results to the results from the care that would have been provided--if any care at all--had task shifting not occurred. Task shifting is a promising policy option to increase the productive efficiency of the delivery of health care services, increasing the number of services provided at a given quality and cost. Future studies should examine the development of new professional cadres that evolve with technology and country-specific labour markets. To strengthen the evidence, skill mix changes need to be evaluated with a rigorous research design to estimate the effect on patient health outcomes, quality of care, and costs.

/pdf/health-workforce-skill-mix-and-task-shifting-in-low-income-45abxfnq84.pdf

Health workforce skill mix and task shifting in low income countries: a review of recent evidence

Objective: To ascertain any differences between care from nurse practitioners and that from general practitioners for patients seeking “same day” consultations in primary care.

Design: Randomised controlled trial with patients allocated by one of two randomisation schemes (by day or within day).

Setting: 10 general practices in south Wales and south west England.

Subjects: 1368 patients requesting same day consultations.

Main outcome measures: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: This study supports the wider acceptance of the role of nurse practitioners in providing care to patients requesting same day consultations.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/320/7241/1043.full.pdf

Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting "same day" consultations in primary care

AIM: To compare a nurse-led clinic in schools versus care in general practice for adolescents with asthma. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial in four schools; parallel observational study in two schools. SETTING: Six comprehensive schools. METHOD: In the randomised trial, pupils were invited to attend asthma review at a nurse-led clinic either in school, or in general practice. The parallel observational study compared pupils invited to practice care within and outside the randomised trial. Primary outcome measures were attendance for asthma review, symptom control, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, attitudes, inhaler technique, use of steroids, school absence, peak flow rate, preference for future care, health service utilisation, and costs. RESULTS: School clinic pupils were more likely to attend an asthma review than those randomised to practice care (90.8% versus 51.0% overall [P < 0.001, not consistent across schools]). No differences were observed in symptom control (P = 0.42) or quality of life (P = 0.63). Pupils attending school clinics had greater knowledge of asthma (difference = +0.38, 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.56), more positive attitudes (difference = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.36), and better inhaler technique (P < 0.001, not consistent across all schools). No differences were observed in school absence or peak flow rate. A majority (63%) of those who had received care at school preferred this model in future. Median costs of providing care at school and at the practice were 32.10 Pounds and 19.80 Pounds, respectively. No differences were observed between the groups in the observational comparison on any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The schools asthma clinic increased uptake of asthma reviews. There were improvements in various process measures, but not in clinical outcomes.

Kate Parry

Papers

Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting "same day" consultations in primary care

A randomised controlled trial of clinics in secondary schools for adolescents with asthma.