The cost-effectiveness of physician assistants/associates: A systematic review of international evidence.

BACKGROUND: The global utilization of the physician assistant/associate (PA) is growing. Their increasing presence is in response to the rising demands of demographic changes, new developments in healthcare, and physician shortages. While PAs are present on four continents, the evidence of whether their employment contributes to more efficient healthcare has not been assessed in the aggregate. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on PA cost-effectiveness as compared to physicians. Cost-effectiveness was operationalized as quality, accessibility, and the cost of care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Literature to June 2021 was searched across five biomedical databases and filtered for eligibility. Publications that met the inclusion criteria were categorized by date, country, design, and results by three researchers independently. All studies were screened with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBIN-I) tool. The literature search produced 4,855 titles, and after applying criteria, 39 studies met inclusion (34 North America, 4 Europe, 1 Africa). Ten studies had a prospective design, and 29 were retrospective. Four studies were assessed as biased in results reporting. While most studies included a small number of PAs, five studies were national in origin and assessed the employment of a few hundred PAs and their care of thousands of patients. In 34 studies, the PA was employed as a substitute for traditional physician services, and in five studies, the PA was employed in a complementary role. The quality of care delivered by a PA was comparable to a physician's care in 15 studies, and in 18 studies, the quality of care exceeded that of a physician. In total, 29 studies showed that both labor and resource costs were lower when the PA delivered the care than when the physician delivered the care. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the studies were of good methodological quality, and the results point in the same direction; PAs delivered the same or better care outcomes as physicians with the same or less cost of care. Sometimes this efficiency was due to their reduced labor cost and sometimes because they were more effective as producers of care and activity.

Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners in Primary Care Plus: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Shifting specialist care from the hospital to primary care/community care (also called primary care plus) is proposed as one option to reduce the increasing healthcare costs, improve quality of care and accessibility. The aim of this systematic review was to get insight in primary care plus provided by physician assistants or nurse practitioners. METHODS: Scientific databases and reference list were searched. Hits were screened on title/abstract and full text. Studies published between 1990-2018 with any study design were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using QualSyst tool. RESULTS: Search resulted in 5.848 hits, 15 studies were included. Studies investigated nurse practitioners only. Primary care plus was at least equally effective as hospital care (patient-related outcomes). The number of admission/referral rates was significantly reduced in favor of primary care plus. Barriers to implement primary care plus included obtaining equipment, structural funding, direct access to patient-data. Facilitators included multidisciplinary collaboration, medical specialist support, protocols. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: Quality of care within primary care plus delivered by nurse practitioners appears to be guaranteed, at patient-level and professional-level, with better access to healthcare and fewer referrals to hospital. Most studies were of restricted methodological quality. Findings should be interpreted with caution.

An activity analysis of Dutch hospital-based physician assistants and nurse practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The physician assistant (PA) and the nurse practitioner (NP) were introduced into The Netherlands in 2001 and 1997 respectively. By the second decade, national policies had accelerated the acceptance and development of these professions. Since 2015, the PA and NP have full practice authority as independent health professionals. The aim of this research was to gain a better understanding of the tasks and responsibilities that are being shifted from Medical Doctors (MD) to PAs and NPs in hospitals. More specifically in what context and visibility are these tasks undertaken by hospital-based PAs and NPs in patient care. This will enable them to communicate their worth to the hospital management. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive, non-experimental research method design was used to collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data about the type of tasks performed by a PA or NP. Fifteen medical departments across four hospitals participated. METHODS: The patient scheduling system and hospital information system were probed to identify and characterize a wide variety of clinical tasks. The array of tasks was further verified by 108 interviews. All tasks were divided into direct and indirect patient care. Once the tasks were cataloged, then MDs and hospital managers graded the PA- or NP-performed tasks and assessed their contributions to the hospital management system. FINDINGS: In total, 2883 tasks were assessed. Overall, PAs and NPs performed a wide variety of clinical and administrative tasks, which differed across hospitals and medical specialties. Data from interviews and the hospital management systems revealed that over a third of the tasks were not properly registered or attributed to the PA or NP. After correction, it was found that the NP and PA spent more than two thirds of their working time on direct patient care. CONCLUSIONS: NPs and PAs performed a wide variety of clinical tasks, and the consistency of these tasks differed per medical specialty. Despite the fact that a large part of the tasks was not visible due to incorrect administration, the interviews with MDs and managers revealed that the use of an NP or PA was considered to have an added value at the quality of care as well to the production for hospital-based medical care in The Netherlands.

Impact of primary healthcare providers' initial role security and therapeutic commitment on implementing brief interventions in managing risky alcohol consumption: a cluster randomised factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Brief interventions in primary healthcare are cost-effective in reducing drinking problems but poorly implemented in routine practice. Although evidence about implementing brief interventions is growing, knowledge is limited with regard to impact of initial role security and therapeutic commitment on brief intervention implementation. METHODS: In a cluster randomised factorial trial, 120 primary healthcare units (PHCUs) were randomised to eight groups: care as usual, training and support, financial reimbursement, and the opportunity to refer patients to an internet-based brief intervention (e-BI); paired combinations of these three strategies, and all three strategies combined. To explore the impact of initial role security and therapeutic commitment on implementing brief interventions, we performed multilevel linear regression analyses adapted to the factorial design. RESULTS: Data from 746 providers from 120 PHCUs were included in the analyses. Baseline role security and therapeutic commitment were found not to influence implementation of brief interventions. Furthermore, there were no significant interactions between these characteristics and allocated implementation groups. CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which providers changed their brief intervention delivery following experience of different implementation strategies was not determined by their initial attitudes towards alcohol problems. In future research, more attention is needed to unravel the causal relation between practitioners' attitudes, their actual behaviour and care improvement strategies to enhance implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01501552.

Strategies in primary healthcare to implement early identification of risky alcohol consumption: why do they work or not? A qualitative evaluation of the ODHIN study.

BACKGROUND: Screening and brief interventions (SBI) in primary healthcare are cost-effective in risky drinkers, yet they are not offered to all eligible patients. This qualitative study aimed to provide more insight into the factors and mechanisms of why, how, for whom and under what circumstances implementation strategies work or do not work in increasing SBI. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between February and July 2014 with 40 GPs and 28 nurses in Catalonia, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Participants were purposefully selected from the European Optimising Delivery of Healthcare Interventions (ODHIN) trial. This randomised controlled trial evaluated the influence of training and support, financial reimbursement and an internet-based method of delivering advice on SBI. Amongst them were 38 providers with a high screening performance and 30 with a low screening performance from different allocation groups. Realist evaluation was combined with the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework for identification of implementation determinants to guide the interviews and analysis. Transcripts were analysed thematically with the diagram affinity method. RESULTS: Training and support motivated SBI by improved knowledge, skills and prioritisation. Continuous provision, sufficient time to learn intervention techniques and to tailor to individual experienced barriers, seemed important T&S conditions. Catalan and Polish professionals perceived financial reimbursement to be an additional stimulating factor as well, as effects on SBI were smoothened by personnel levels and salary levels. Structural payment for preventive services rather than a temporary project based payment, might have increased the effects of financial reimbursement. Implementing e-BI seem to require more guidance than was delivered in ODHIN. Despite the allocation, important preconditions for SBI routine seemed frequent exposure of this topic in media and guidelines, SBI facilitating information systems, and having SBI in protocol-led care. Hence, the second order analysis revealed that the applied implementation strategies have high potential on the micro professional level and meso-organisational level, however due to influences from the macro- level such as societal and political culture the effects risks to get nullified. CONCLUSIONS: Essential determinants perceived for the implementation of SBI routines were identified, in particular for training and support and financial reimbursement. However, focusing only on the primary healthcare setting seems insufficient and a more integrated SBI culture, together with meso- and macro-focused implementation process is requested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial identifier: NCT01501552 .

Substitution of doctors by nurses in primary care.

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 STRATEGY: 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). 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.

Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions.

To design potentially successful quality improvement (QI) interventions, it is crucial to make use of detailed breakdowns of the implementation processes of successful and unsuccessful interventions. Process evaluation can throw light on the mechanisms responsible for the result obtained in the intervention group. It enables researchers and implementers to (1). describe the intervention in detail, (2). check actual exposure to the intervention, and (3). describe the experience of those exposed. This paper presents a framework containing features of QI interventions that might influence success. Attention is paid to features of the target group, the implementers or change agents, the frequency of intervention activities, and features of the information imparted. The framework can be used as a starting point to address all three aspects of process evaluation mentioned above. Process evaluation can be applied to small scale improvement projects, controlled QI studies, and large scale QI programmes; in each case it plays a different role.

Effects of melatonin on the quality of life in patients with delayed sleep phase syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare health-related quality of life of delayed sleep phase syndrome (DSPS) patients with a random Dutch sample and four samples of patients with other chronic conditions. We also investigated the effectiveness of treatment with 5 mg of melatonin on the quality of life of DSPS patients. METHODS: Forty-three DSPS patients completed a quality-of-life questionnaire (Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 [MOS SF-36] health survey) just before and 2-9 months after participation in a clinical trial involving the administration of melatonin. Scores were compared with responses to the same survey by a random Dutch sample and by patients with sleep apnea, clinical depression, migraine, and osteoarthritis. RESULTS: MOS SF-36 scales scores were significantly lower in DSPS patients relative to age- and gender-adjusted norms for the Dutch sample. Some health dimensions were more affected, and others less affected, by DSPS compared with the other chronic conditions. Melatonin treatment improved all scales except the scale "role due to emotional problems." CONCLUSION: DSPS has a unique significant quality-of-life burden that seems to be improved by treatment with melatonin.