ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2010
Perceptions of nurse practitioners by emergency department doctors in Australia.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives on the impact of the inclusion of non-medical practitioners in the skill mixed staffing teams of English emergency departments: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Article
- Non-medical practitioners in the staffing of emergency departments and urgent treatment centres in England: a mixed qualitative methods study of policy implementation.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- US emergency care patterns among nurse practitioners and physician assistants compared with physicians: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Australian Nurse Practitioner Practice: Value Adding through Clinical Reflexivity.Nursing research and practice · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Australian Medical Association is strongly opposed to the nurse practitioner (NP) role with concerns that NPs may become doctor substitutes without the requisite training and education that the medical role demands. Despite this, NPs have been heralded by some as a potential solution to the access block, workforce shortage and increased demand affecting emergency departments (EDs).
aimsThe purpose of this study was to determine the perception of NPs by medical staff working in Australian EDs.
methodsSemi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with closed and open-ended questions. Participants were drawn from a representative stratified sample of two city, two metropolitan and two provincial hospitals of each State/Territory.
resultsA total of 95 doctors from 35 EDs participated in this study including 36 Departmental Directors; 36% of participating Directors indicated having an NP on staff. Doctors were strongly opposed to the statement that NPs could replace either nurses or other prevocational doctors; 71 interviewees commented on the role of NPs in the ED. Thematic analyses revealed polarised views held by doctors. Eight major themes were identified, the most common being that there is a lack of clarity of the NP role definition, their scope of practice and differentiation from the medical role.
conclusionAlthough ED NPs represent a highly skilled professional group their role is poorly understood by ED doctors. Opposition to the NP role is a significant barrier to the introduction of great numbers of ED NPs as a strategy to overcome the medical workforce shortage. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12245-010-0214-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.