Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Randomised controlled trial comparing cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners in primary care
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Randomised controlled trial comparing cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners in primary care
Do you wish to request the book?
Randomised controlled trial comparing cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners in primary care
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Randomised controlled trial comparing cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners in primary care
2000
Overview
Abstract Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners as first point of contact in primary care. Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial of patients requesting an appointment the same day. Setting: 20 general practices in England and Wales. Participants: 1716 patients were eligible for randomisation, of whom 1316 agreed to randomisation and 1303 subsequently attended the clinic. Data were available for analysis on 1292 patients (651 general practitioner consultations and 641 nurse practitioner consultations). Main outcome measures: Consultation process (length of consultation, examinations, prescriptions, referrals), patient satisfaction, health status, return clinic visits over two weeks, and costs. Results: Nurse practitioner consultations were significantly longer than those of the general practitioners (11.57 v 7.28 min; adjusted difference 4.20, 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.41), and nurses carried out more tests (8.7% v 5.6% of patients; odds ratio 1.66, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.66) and asked patients to return more often (37.2% v 24.8%; 1.93, 1.36 to 2.73). There was no significant difference in patterns of prescribing or health status outcome for the two groups. Patients were more satisfied with nurse practitioner consultations (mean score 4.40 v 4.24 for general practitioners; adjusted difference 0.18, 0.092 to 0.257). This difference remained after consultation length was controlled for. There was no significant difference in health service costs (nurse practitioner £18.11 v general practitioner £20.70; adjusted difference £2.33, −£1.62 to £6.28). Conclusions: The clinical care and health service costs of nurse practitioners and general practitioners were similar. If nurse practitioners were able to maintain the benefits while reducing their return consultation rate or shortening consultation times, they could be more cost effective than general practitioners.
Publisher
British Medical Journal Publishing Group,British Medical Association,BMJ Publishing Group Ltd,BMJ Publishing Group LTD,British Medical Journal
Subject
/ Adult
/ Aged
/ Child
/ England
/ Family Practice - organization & administration
/ Humans
/ Infant
/ Nurse Practitioners - economics
/ Nurse Practitioners - organization & administration
/ Nurses
/ Patient Acceptance of Health Care
/ Patient Satisfaction - statistics & numerical data
/ Practice Patterns, Physicians' - economics
/ Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data
/ Professional Practice - economics
/ Professional Practice - statistics & numerical data
/ Referral and Consultation - statistics & numerical data
/ Wales
