- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 4
I though about the best place to put this thread and considering this section is dedicated to NPs and other clinicians, I'll place it here. Bellow I have listed comparisons between physician and NPs. I have also provided a comparison study between NPs and PAs. I'm looking to read comments about what people think of these studies. The reason I am posting these studies (all found on Pubmed), with links, is so people in this forum can use scientific studies on the subject rather than opinions. I have bolded all the statements that make the comparisons.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192259 - "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)."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4493821/pdf/12960_2015_Article_49.pdf - "While most (84 %) study estimates showed no significant differences between nurse-led care and physician-led care, nurses achieved better outcomes in the secondary prevention of heart disease and a greater positive effect in managing dyspepsia and at lowering cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients. The studies were generally small, of varying follow-up episodes and were at risk of biases. Descriptive details about roles, qualifications or interventions were also incomplete or not reported."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4466759/pdf/bmjopen-2014-007167.pdf - "11 trials were included. In four trials of alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but seven patient outcomes favouring nurse practitioner care and in all but four health system outcomes, one favouring nurse practitioner care and three favouring physician care. In a meta-analysis of two studies (2689 patients) with minimal heterogeneity and high-quality evidence, nurse practitioner care resulted in lower mean health services costs per consultation (mean difference: -€6.41; 95% CI -€9.28 to -€3.55; p<0.0001) (2006 euros). In two trials of alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but three patient outcomes and one health system outcome favouring nurse practitioner care. In five trials of complementary provider specialised ambulatory care roles, 16 patient/provider outcomes favouring nurse practitioner plus usual care, and 16 were equivalent. Two health system outcomes favoured nurse practitioner plus usual care, four favoured usual care and 14 were equivalent. Four studies of complementary specialised ambulatory care compared costs, but only one assessed costs and outcomes jointly."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26836900 - "Among 9,066 admissions, there was no difference in 90-day survival for patients cared for by ACNP or resident teams (adjusted hazard ratio
, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.04; P = .21). Although patients cared for by ACNPs had lower ICU mortality (6.3%) than resident team patients (11.6%; adjusted OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .01), hospital mortality was not different (10.0% vs 15.9%; adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.03; P = .11). ICU length of stay was similar between the ACNP and resident teams (3.4 ± 3.5 days vs 3.7 ± 3.9 days [adjusted OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.1; P = .81]), but hospital length of stay was shorter for patients cared for by ACNPs (7.9 ± 11.2 days) than for resident patients (9.1 ± 11.2 days) (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95; P = .001)."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25643375 - Results aspect of abstract - "Participants in the MD-only cohort had significantly less orientation and independence in activities of daily living compared to participants in the NP/PA-dominant cohort. Other study variables did not vary significantly by practice model. Although the study provides some evidence that NP/PA involvement is associated with improved functioning, it is premature to draw strong inferences."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25443307 - "Five trials met the inclusion criteria. One evaluated one alternative provider nurse practitioner (154 patients) and four evaluated six complementary provider nurse practitioners (1017 patients). Two were at low and three at high risk of bias and all had weak economic analyses. The alternative provider nurse practitioner had similar patient outcomes and resource use to the physician (low quality). Complementary provider nurse practitioners scored similarly to the control group in patient outcomes except for anxiety in rehabilitation patients (MD: -15.7, 95%CI: -20.73 to -10.67, p<0.001) (very low quality) and patient satisfaction after an abdominal hysterectomy (MD: 14, 95%CI: 3.5-24.5, p<0.01) (low quality), both favouring nurse practitioner care. Meta-analyses of index re-hospitalisation up to 42 days (n=766, pooled relative risk (RR): 0.69, 95%CI: 0.34-1.43, I(2)=0%) and any re-hospitalisation up to 180 days (n=800, pooled RR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.69-1.09, I(2)=32%) were inconclusive (low quality). Complementary provider nurse practitioners significantly reduced index re-hospitalisation over 90 days (RR: 0.55, 95%CI: 0.32-0.94, p=0.03) and 180 days (RR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.40-0.95, p=0.03) in complex care patients (both low quality) and they significantly reduced the number and duration of rehabilitation patient-to-staff consultation calls (p<0.05)."
ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/25167081 - "Twenty-one ICUs (72.4%) reported NP/PA participation in direct patient care. Patients in ICUs with NPs/PAs had lower mean Acute Physiology Scores (42.4 vs 46.7, P < .001) and mechanical ventilation rates (38.8% vs 44.2%, P < .001) than ICUs without NPs/PAs. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted mortality was similar between groups (adjusted relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.92-1.31). This result was consistent in all examined subgroups." Note: Those scores correlate with patient illness severity. For example, lower scores correlate with higher likelihood of survivability.
ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC4065389/pdf/1472-6963-14-214.pdf - “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.”
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23450599 – “We found no significant difference between nurse-led care for patients with asthma compared to physician-led care for the outcomes assessed. Based on the relatively small number of studies in this review, nurse-led care may be appropriate in patients with well-controlled asthma. More studies in varied settings and among people with varying levels of asthma control are needed with data on adverse events and health-care costs.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21311842 – “The degree of disease control in stable childhood asthma managed by an asthma nurse is not inferior to traditional management by primary or secondary care physicians. The results also suggest that a lower review frequency does not detract from good disease control.”
Two points for clarification (restating some of the main points):
1 - There are no opinions by the author of this post expressed in this post.
2 - Why should you stay on topic? Because whether you are trying to prove that NPs or PAs lack the knowledge to be independent providers or that NPs or PAs should practice independently because of their backgrounds and other healthcare issues, you should be trying to support your points with scientific evidence. If you find the current studies are lacking in depth or quality, you should be striving to create standards, so that a study can be performed hopefully proving your point. Your thoughts on what those standards should be, should be a part of your reply to this thread (the more specific you can get, the better). This is not a place to state anecdotal evidence, make assumptions, or reply with irrelevant information, and I ask that those people please use the search bar to find the large number of threads that have those responses (if that is your goal).
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192259 - "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)."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4493821/pdf/12960_2015_Article_49.pdf - "While most (84 %) study estimates showed no significant differences between nurse-led care and physician-led care, nurses achieved better outcomes in the secondary prevention of heart disease and a greater positive effect in managing dyspepsia and at lowering cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients. The studies were generally small, of varying follow-up episodes and were at risk of biases. Descriptive details about roles, qualifications or interventions were also incomplete or not reported."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4466759/pdf/bmjopen-2014-007167.pdf - "11 trials were included. In four trials of alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but seven patient outcomes favouring nurse practitioner care and in all but four health system outcomes, one favouring nurse practitioner care and three favouring physician care. In a meta-analysis of two studies (2689 patients) with minimal heterogeneity and high-quality evidence, nurse practitioner care resulted in lower mean health services costs per consultation (mean difference: -€6.41; 95% CI -€9.28 to -€3.55; p<0.0001) (2006 euros). In two trials of alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but three patient outcomes and one health system outcome favouring nurse practitioner care. In five trials of complementary provider specialised ambulatory care roles, 16 patient/provider outcomes favouring nurse practitioner plus usual care, and 16 were equivalent. Two health system outcomes favoured nurse practitioner plus usual care, four favoured usual care and 14 were equivalent. Four studies of complementary specialised ambulatory care compared costs, but only one assessed costs and outcomes jointly."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26836900 - "Among 9,066 admissions, there was no difference in 90-day survival for patients cared for by ACNP or resident teams (adjusted hazard ratio
, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.04; P = .21). Although patients cared for by ACNPs had lower ICU mortality (6.3%) than resident team patients (11.6%; adjusted OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .01), hospital mortality was not different (10.0% vs 15.9%; adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.03; P = .11). ICU length of stay was similar between the ACNP and resident teams (3.4 ± 3.5 days vs 3.7 ± 3.9 days [adjusted OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.1; P = .81]), but hospital length of stay was shorter for patients cared for by ACNPs (7.9 ± 11.2 days) than for resident patients (9.1 ± 11.2 days) (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95; P = .001)."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25643375 - Results aspect of abstract - "Participants in the MD-only cohort had significantly less orientation and independence in activities of daily living compared to participants in the NP/PA-dominant cohort. Other study variables did not vary significantly by practice model. Although the study provides some evidence that NP/PA involvement is associated with improved functioning, it is premature to draw strong inferences."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25443307 - "Five trials met the inclusion criteria. One evaluated one alternative provider nurse practitioner (154 patients) and four evaluated six complementary provider nurse practitioners (1017 patients). Two were at low and three at high risk of bias and all had weak economic analyses. The alternative provider nurse practitioner had similar patient outcomes and resource use to the physician (low quality). Complementary provider nurse practitioners scored similarly to the control group in patient outcomes except for anxiety in rehabilitation patients (MD: -15.7, 95%CI: -20.73 to -10.67, p<0.001) (very low quality) and patient satisfaction after an abdominal hysterectomy (MD: 14, 95%CI: 3.5-24.5, p<0.01) (low quality), both favouring nurse practitioner care. Meta-analyses of index re-hospitalisation up to 42 days (n=766, pooled relative risk (RR): 0.69, 95%CI: 0.34-1.43, I(2)=0%) and any re-hospitalisation up to 180 days (n=800, pooled RR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.69-1.09, I(2)=32%) were inconclusive (low quality). Complementary provider nurse practitioners significantly reduced index re-hospitalisation over 90 days (RR: 0.55, 95%CI: 0.32-0.94, p=0.03) and 180 days (RR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.40-0.95, p=0.03) in complex care patients (both low quality) and they significantly reduced the number and duration of rehabilitation patient-to-staff consultation calls (p<0.05)."
ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/25167081 - "Twenty-one ICUs (72.4%) reported NP/PA participation in direct patient care. Patients in ICUs with NPs/PAs had lower mean Acute Physiology Scores (42.4 vs 46.7, P < .001) and mechanical ventilation rates (38.8% vs 44.2%, P < .001) than ICUs without NPs/PAs. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted mortality was similar between groups (adjusted relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.92-1.31). This result was consistent in all examined subgroups." Note: Those scores correlate with patient illness severity. For example, lower scores correlate with higher likelihood of survivability.
ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC4065389/pdf/1472-6963-14-214.pdf - “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.”
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23450599 – “We found no significant difference between nurse-led care for patients with asthma compared to physician-led care for the outcomes assessed. Based on the relatively small number of studies in this review, nurse-led care may be appropriate in patients with well-controlled asthma. More studies in varied settings and among people with varying levels of asthma control are needed with data on adverse events and health-care costs.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21311842 – “The degree of disease control in stable childhood asthma managed by an asthma nurse is not inferior to traditional management by primary or secondary care physicians. The results also suggest that a lower review frequency does not detract from good disease control.”
Two points for clarification (restating some of the main points):
1 - There are no opinions by the author of this post expressed in this post.
2 - Why should you stay on topic? Because whether you are trying to prove that NPs or PAs lack the knowledge to be independent providers or that NPs or PAs should practice independently because of their backgrounds and other healthcare issues, you should be trying to support your points with scientific evidence. If you find the current studies are lacking in depth or quality, you should be striving to create standards, so that a study can be performed hopefully proving your point. Your thoughts on what those standards should be, should be a part of your reply to this thread (the more specific you can get, the better). This is not a place to state anecdotal evidence, make assumptions, or reply with irrelevant information, and I ask that those people please use the search bar to find the large number of threads that have those responses (if that is your goal).
Last edited: