A Meta-Analysis of Nurse Practitioners and Nurse Midwives in Primary Care

1995 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 332???339 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHARON A. BROWN ◽  
DEANNA E. GRIMES
2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037405
Author(s):  
Daniel Dedman ◽  
Melissa Cabecinha ◽  
Rachael Williams ◽  
Stephen J W Evans ◽  
Krishnan Bhaskaran ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo identify observational studies which used data from more than one primary care electronic health record (EHR) database, and summarise key characteristics including: objective and rationale for using multiple data sources; methods used to manage, analyse and (where applicable) combine data; and approaches used to assess and report heterogeneity between data sources.DesignA systematic review of published studies.Data sourcesPubmed and Embase databases were searched using list of named primary care EHR databases; supplementary hand searches of reference list of studies were retained after initial screening.Study selectionObservational studies published between January 2000 and May 2018 were selected, which included at least two different primary care EHR databases.Results6054 studies were identified from database and hand searches, and 109 were included in the final review, the majority published between 2014 and 2018. Included studies used 38 different primary care EHR data sources. Forty-seven studies (44%) were descriptive or methodological. Of 62 analytical studies, 22 (36%) presented separate results from each database, with no attempt to combine them; 29 (48%) combined individual patient data in a one-stage meta-analysis and 21 (34%) combined estimates from each database using two-stage meta-analysis. Discussion and exploration of heterogeneity was inconsistent across studies.ConclusionsComparing patterns and trends in different populations, or in different primary care EHR databases from the same populations, is important and a common objective for multi-database studies. When combining results from several databases using meta-analysis, provision of separate results from each database is helpful for interpretation. We found that these were often missing, particularly for studies using one-stage approaches, which also often lacked details of any statistical adjustment for heterogeneity and/or clustering. For two-stage meta-analysis, a clear rationale should be provided for choice of fixed effect and/or random effects or other models.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Amanda Roberts ◽  
Jim Rogers ◽  
Stephen Sharman ◽  
G. J. Melendez-Torres ◽  
Sean Cowlishaw

Author(s):  
Cilgy M. Abraham ◽  
Katherine Zheng ◽  
Allison A. Norful ◽  
Affan Ghaffari ◽  
Jianfang Liu ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Milena Bergmann ◽  
Jörg Haasenritter ◽  
Dominik Beidatsch ◽  
Sonja Schwarm ◽  
Kaja Hörner ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Cough is a relevant reason for encounter in primary care. For evidence-based decision making, general practitioners need setting-specific knowledge about prevalences, pre-test probabilities, and prognosis. Accordingly, we performed a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies evaluating cough as reason for encounter in primary care. Methods We conducted a search in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Eligibility criteria and methodological quality were assessed independently by two reviewers. We extracted data on prevalence, aetiologies and prognosis, and estimated the variation across studies. If justifiable in terms of heterogeneity, we performed a meta-analysis. Results We identified 21 eligible studies on prevalence, 12 on aetiology, and four on prognosis. Prevalence/incidence estimates were 3.8–4.2%/12.5% (Western primary care) and 10.3–13.8%/6.3–6.5% in Africa, Asia and South America. In Western countries the underlying diagnoses for acute cough or cough of all durations were respiratory tract infections (73–91.9%), influenza (6–15.2%), asthma (3.2–15%), laryngitis/tracheitis (3.6–9%), pneumonia (4.0–4.2%), COPD (0.5–3.3%), heart failure (0.3%), and suspected malignancy (0.2–1.8%). Median time for recovery was 9 to 11 days. Complete recovery was reported by 40.2- 67% of patients after two weeks, and by 79% after four weeks. About 21.1–35% of patients re-consulted; 0–1.3% of acute cough patients were hospitalized, none died. Evidence is missing concerning subacute and chronic cough. Conclusion Prevalences and incidences of cough are high and show regional variation. Acute cough, mainly caused by respiratory tract infections, is usually self-limiting (supporting a “wait-and-see” strategy). We have no setting-specific evidence to support current guideline recommendations concerning subacute or chronic cough in Western primary care. Our study presents epidemiological data under non non-pandemic conditions. It will be interesting to compare these data to future research results of the post-pandemic era.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 696-709
Author(s):  
Calum F Leask ◽  
Heather Tennant

Background Considering new models of delivery may help reduce increasing pressures on primary care. One potentially viable solution is utilising Advanced Practitioners to deliver unscheduled afternoon visits otherwise undertaken by a General Practitioner (GP). Aims Evaluate the feasibility of utilising an Advanced Nurse Practitioner (ANP) to deliver unscheduled home visits on behalf of GPs in a primary care setting. Methods Following a telephone request from patients, ANPs conducted unscheduled home visits on behalf of GPs over a six-month period. Service-level data collected included patient-facing time and outcome of visits. Practice staff and ANPs participated in mind-mapping sessions to explore perceptions of the service. Results There were 239 accepted referrals (total visiting time 106.55 hours). The most common outcomes for visits were ‘medication and worsening statement given’ (107 cases) and ‘self-care advice’ (47 cases). GPs were very satisfied with the service (average score 90%), reporting reductions in stress and capacity improvements. Given the low referral rejection rate, ANPs discussed the potential to increase the number of practices able to access this model, in addition to the possibility of utilising other practitioners (such as paramedics or physiotherapists) to deliver the same service. Conclusions It appears delivering unscheduled care provision using an ANP is feasible and acceptable to GPs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document