Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10764365›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2000

Nurse management of patients with minor illnesses in general practice: multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

C Shum, A Humphreys, D Wheeler, M A Cochrane, S Skoda, S Clement

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00461201 (Effectiveness of an Intervention in Primary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 56 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00461201 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2009, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of an Intervention in Primary Care: Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Care for Patients Requesting Same Day Consultations by Nurse Practitioner vs General Practitioners

TypeinterventionalSponsorCatalan Institute of HealthRan2009Enrolled1,640ConditionsAcute Disease, Nursing Care, Ambulatory Care, Family PracticeArmsNurse practitioner care of patients
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Systematic review of recent innovations in service provision to improve access to primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004
    Pooled it
  11. Walk-in centres in primary care: a review of the international literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Comparison of GP and nurse practitioner consultations: an observational study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

C ShumWalderslade Village Surgery, Walderslade ME5 9LD. cshum@which.net
A Humphreys
D Wheeler
M A Cochrane
S Skoda
S Clement

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the acceptability and safety of a minor illness service led by practice nurses in general practice.

designMulticentre, randomised controlled trial.

setting5 general practices in south east London and Kent representing semi-rural, suburban, and urban settings.

participants1815 patients requesting and offered same day appointments by receptionists.

interventionPatients were assigned to treatment by either a specially trained nurse or a general practitioner. Patients seen by a nurse were referred to a general practitioner when appropriate.

main outcome measuresThe general satisfaction of the patients as measured by the consultation satisfaction questionnaire. Other outcome measures included the length of the consultation, number of prescriptions written, rates of referral to general practitioners, patient's reported health status, patient's anticipated behaviour in seeking health care in future, and number of patients who returned to the surgery, visits to accident and emergency, and out of hours calls to doctors.

resultsPatients were very satisfied with both nurses and doctors, but they were significantly more satisfied with their consultations with nurses (mean (SD) score of satisfaction 78.6 (16. 0) of 100 points for nurses v 76.4 (17.8) for doctors; 95% confidence interval for difference between means -4.07 to -0.38). Consultations with nurses took about 10 minutes compared with about 8 minutes for consultations with doctors. Nurses and doctors wrote prescriptions for a similar proportion of patients (nurses 481/736 (65.4%) v doctors 518/816 (63.5%)). 577/790 (73%) patients seen by nurses were managed without any input from doctors.

conclusionPractice nurses seem to offer an effective service for patients with minor illnesses who request same day appointments.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdultEnglandFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleNurse-Patient RelationsPatient SatisfactionPrognosisRural HealthUrban Health

Identifiers

PMID10764365
PMCPMC27346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.