Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20040166›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2010

Nurse staffing and quality of care in UK general practice: cross-sectional study using routinely collected data.

Peter Griffiths, Trevor Murrells, Jill Maben, Simon Jones, Mark Ashworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Nursing consultations and control of diabetes in general practice: a retrospective observational study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Observational
  19. Editor's Briefing.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Article
  20. Practice nursing: what do we know?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter GriffithsNational Nursing Research Unit, King's College, 57 Waterloo Road, London, UK. peter.griffiths@kcl.ac.uk
Trevor Murrells
Jill Maben
Simon Jones
Mark Ashworth

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many UK general practices, nurses have been used to deliver results against the indicators of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a 'pay for performance' scheme.

aimTo determine the association between the level of nurse staffing in general practice and the quality of clinical care as measured by the QOF. DESIGN OF THE STUDY: Cross-sectional analysis of routine data.

settingEnglish general practice in 2005/2006.

methodQOF data from 7456 general practices were linked with a database of practice characteristics, nurse staffing data, and census-derived data on population characteristics and measures of population density. Multi-level modelling explored the relationship between QOF performance and the number of patients per full-time equivalent nurse. The outcome measures were achievement of quality of care for eight clinical domains as rated by the QOF, and reported achievement of 10 clinical outcome indicators derived from it.

resultsA high level of nurse staffing (fewer patients per full-time equivalent practice-employed nurse) was significantly associated with better performance in 4/8 clinical domains of the QOF (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension, P = 0.004 to P<0.001) and in 4/10 clinical outcome indicators (diabetes: glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA(1C)] < or =7.4%, HbA(1C) < or =10% and total cholesterol < or =193 mg/dl; and stroke: total cholesterol < or =5 mmol/L, P = 0.0057 to P<0.001).

conclusionPractices that employ more nurses perform better in a number of clinical domains measured by the QOF. This improved performance includes better intermediate clinical outcomes, suggesting real patient benefit may be associated with using nurses to deliver care to meet QOF targets.

Indexed as

Quality Indicators, Health CareAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursing StaffPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingReimbursement, IncentiveWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID20040166
PMCPMC2801804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.