Observational studies included in review
Methodological quality of randomised controlled trials
Methodological quality of observational studies
Health status and health related quality of life
Quality of care in randomised controlled trials
Table A Randomised controlled trials included
in review (9 were in general practice setting)
Reference | Patient sample (setting and No of patients) | Setting (No of sites) | No of nurse practitioners (qualification level)* and No of doctors | Main outcomes | Comment |
Sackett et al 1974W1Spitzer et al 1974W2 | Family practice: nurse practitioners, 540 families, 1529 people; doctors 1058 families, 2796 people. Subsample for patient satisfaction and health status interviews: nurse practitioners 296; doctors 521 | Family practice (1) | 2 Nurse practitioners (2); 2 doctors | Health status; deaths; patient satisfaction; quality of care; cost effectiveness | Power calculation not reported. Families were randomly allocated but had the option to swap groups (2 from doctor group and 5 from nurse practitioner group swapped.) Only 67% of patients managed entirely by nurse practitioners as nurses needed to refer to physicians for advice for a third of patients. Care over time study |
Hoekelman 1975W3 | Well baby care: nurse practitioners 103; doctors 143 | Paediatric clinic; private paediatric practice (2) | 23 Paediatric nurse practitioners (2); 4 doctors | Service use; maternal knowledge; maternal compliance; abnormality detection rate | Power calculation not reported. Study complicated by comparing nurse practitioners across clinic and private practice settings. Care over time study |
Burnip et al 1976W4 | Well child care: nurse practitioners 474; doctors 678 | Medical centres (2) | 6 Paediatric nurse practitioners (3); doctors not reported | Prescriptions; investigations; health service costs; service use | Power calculation not reported. 15.7% of mothers seeing nurse practitioners wanted to change provider. Care over time study |
Chambers and West 1978W5 | Family practice: nurse practitioners 296; doctors 572 | Family practice (1) | 1 Nurse practitioner (2); 1 doctors | Patient health status: physical, emotional, and social function | Power calculation not reported. High (37%) unexplained dropout rate and big difference between groups. Care over time study |
Winter 1981W6 | Primary care: nurse practitioners 25; doctors 25 | Primary care clinic (1) | 5 Nurse practitioners (2); 5 doctors | Patient satisfaction with quality of care | Power calculation not reported. MSc thesis. Small study. Sample: high ratio females to male providers, and preferences expressed could have been due to sex of providers |
Cooper 2001W7 | Patients with minor injuries: nurse practitioners 102; doctors 102 | Emergency department (1) | Nurse practitioners (4) not reported; doctors not reported | Patient satisfaction; length of consultation; No of radiographs; internal referrals; unplanned return visits; quality of care | Unpublished report: pilot study for proposed randomised controlled trial¾ study too small to detect real differences |
Sakr et al 1999W8 | Patients with recent traumatic injury: nurse practitioners 704; doctors 749 | Emergency department (1) | Nurse practitioners (3) not reported; doctors not reported | Patient satisfaction; adequacy of care | Use of 2 research registrars could have increased variation between them, such as whether radiography was needed |
Kinnersley et al 2000W9 | Patients requesting same day appointments: nurse practitioners 652; doctors 716 | General practices (10) | 10 Nurse practitioners (2); doctors not reported | Patient satisfaction; resolution of symptoms and concerns at 2 weeks; length of consultation; prescriptions; investigations; referrals; return consultations; costs | Possible selection bias. High refusal rate¾ 216 (12.3%) people refused to participate |
Mundinger et al 2000W10 | Patients requiring primary care after emergency department visit: nurse practitioners 806; doctors 510 | Primary care (5) | 7 Nurse practitioners (1); 17 doctors | Patient satisfaction; health status; physiological measurements; healthcare utilisation | Study may be too small to detect differences for sicker patients. Recruitment bias: only 58% of those screened were recruited, and high attrition as 32.4 % randomised participants did not attend their first appointment, and those who stayed in study differed significantly at baseline. Care over time study |
Shum et al 2000W11 | Patients requesting same day appointments: nurse practitioners 900; doctors 915 | General practices (5) | 5 Nurse practitioners (3) 19 doctors | Patient satisfaction; health status; prescriptions; length of consultation; referrals to doctor; admissions; quality of care measures | Study did not have enough power to detect differences in rare outcomes. Some ambiguity about inclusion¾ nurses not described as nurse practitioners but given this type of training to assess and manage patients autonomously |
Venning et al 2000W12 | Patients requesting same day appointments: nurse practitioners 651; doctors 665 | General practices (20) | 20 Nurse practitioners:(1 and 2); doctors not reported | Length of consultation; prescriptions; investigations; referrals; return consultations; patient satisfaction; health status; costs | No prior power calculation for costs. Not clear how many patients could not attend experimental sessions |
*(1)=Recognised nurse practitioner programme in higher education institution
leading to qualification at degree level or above; (2)=extended training
in higher education institution, relevant to practice as nurse practitioner,
leading to award that is less than degree level; (3)=extended training
outside higher education institution relevant to enhanced practice as nurse
practitioner; (4)=not possible to assign qualification.
Table B Observational studies
included in review (17 were in general practice setting)
Study reference | Patient sample (setting and No of patients) | Setting (No of sites) | No of nurse practitioners* (qualification level) and doctors | Main outcomes | Comment |
Richards and de Castro 1973W13 | Children attending emergency room follow up clinic for primary care (66 nurse practitioners; 47 doctors) | Primary care (1) | 3 Nurse practitioners (4); 1 doctor | Patient satisfaction with communication; quality of care | Small study. Only one physician¾ female (sex probably significant in assessing communication) |
Russo et al 1975W14 | 113 children attending paediatric primary care outpatients (113 nurse practitioners; 113 doctors) | Primary care (1) | 6 Nurse practitioners (3); 6 doctors | Quality of care | Small study. Patients were assessed by both providers and where researcher thought parents’ report was influenced by previous examination the patient was excluded; numbers not reported |
Linn 1976W15 | Patients attending ambulatory care settings (273 nurse practitioners; 957doctors) | Primary care (10) | 10 Nurse practitioners (2); doctors not reported | Patient satisfaction | No discussion of sampling or analysis. Some patients in conventional care group seen only by nurses |
Komaroff et al 1976W16 | Ambulatory care patients with upper respiratory tract infections, genitourinary symptoms (73 nurse practitioners; 47doctors) | Ambulatory care (1) | 1 Nurse practitioner (2); 1 doctor | Patient satisfaction; resolution of symptoms; length of consultation; internal referrals; costs | Likelihood of selection bias. Small sample size and power calculation not reported |
De Angelis and McHugh 1977W17 | Children attending acute paediatric clinic (245 nurse practitioners; 211 doctors) | Primary care (1) | 3 Nurse practitioners (3); 3 doctors | Quality of care; cost effectiveness | Power calculation not reported. Costs not fully reported |
Goodman and Perrin 1978W18 | 5 scenarios of mother concerned about her child’s health presented to nurse practitioners and paediatricians (19 nurse practitioners; 69 doctors) | Primary care: evening phone calls (1) | 5 Nurse practitioners (1 and 2); 23 doctors | Quality of care; maternal satisfaction; length of calls | Not clear if assessors blind. Small sample of nurse practitioner calls. Higher scores in interviewing skills correlated with higher satisfaction and longer length of call |
Graham 1978W19 | Children presenting with new episodes of sore throat (138 nurse practitioners; 136 doctors) | Primary care (1) | 2 Nurse practitioners (3); 3 doctors | Patient or parent satisfaction; quality of care indicators; investigations | |
Hastings et al 1980W20 | Patients who were prison inmates (176 nurse practitioners; 136 doctors) | Prison clinic (3) | 6 Nurse practitioners (3); doctors not reported | Workload; quality of care; health status; patient satisfaction; mortality; test result compared to work performance of nurse practitioners; costs; return consultations | Care over time study |
Salkever et al 1982W21 | Episodes of otitis media and sore throat treated by physicians and nurse practitioners (438 nurse practitioners; 361doctors) | Primary care (1) | 4 Nurse practitioners (4); 4 doctors | Costs; investigations; internal referrals; consultation times; return consultations; prescriptions | Complex study involving analysis of patient encounters supplemented by small observational study to record consultation times |
Powers et al 1984W22 | Patients attending emergency room (31 nurse practitioners; 31doctors) | Emergency department (1) | 1 Nurse practitioner (1); 20 doctors | Patient knowledge satisfaction; compliance; resolution of problems; quality of care | Small sample size, multiple outcomes, some differences likely to be due to chance |
Dunn and Higgins 1986W23 | Isolated North American Indian communities requiring health care (98 338 nurse practitioners; 14 935 doctors) | Primary care (27) | Nurse practitioners (4) not reported; doctors not reported | Range of health problems encountered; diagnostic and management patterns; prescriptions | Differences probably related to types of patients and differences in diagnostic tendencies. Isolated communities, but in developed country: ambiguity about inclusion. Little relevance to United Kingdom. Care over time study |
Salisbury and Tettersell 1988W24 | Patients attending general practice (210 nurse practitioners; 836 doctors) | General practice (1) | 1 Nurse practitioner (3) 1; 1 doctor | Patient satisfaction; prescriptions; referrals; presenting problems and activities of nurse practitioners | No comparative data for patient satisfaction |
Campbell et al 1990W25 | Patients attending a family practice (136 nurse practitioners; 276 doctors) | Primary care (60) | Nurse practitioners (2) not reported; doctors not reported | Quality of care: provider style of delivering health care | Results may be confounded by sex and case mix of sample |
Rhee and Dermyer 1995W26 | Patients attending university emergency department (30 nurse practitioners; 30 doctors) | Emergency department (1) | 1 Nurse practitioner (1); doctors not reported | Patient satisfaction | Ambiguity over control group, unspecified number of medical students included. Strong socioeconomic selection bias as telephone survey, unable to reach 40% of prospective sample |
Freij et al 1996W27 | Patients attending with minor injuries, injuries distal to knee and elbow (150 nurse practitioners; 150 doctors) | Emergency department and minor injury unit (2) | 6 Nurse practitioners (3); doctors not reported | Quality of care: number of appropriate requests for radiography, number of correct interpretations of radiographs | Compared senior house officers and nurse practitioners by expert review of records (records selected at two monthly intervals). Study in two different settings |
Myers et al 1997W28 | Patients requesting urgent appointments for medical problems (500 nurse practitioners; 500 doctors) | General practice (1) | 1 Nurse practitioners (1); doctors not reported | Prescriptions; referrals; admissions; return consultations | Patients self selected care, some outcomes stated were not reported (misdiagnoses and dysfunctional consultations), differences in morbidity between two groups |
Bond et al 1998W29 (EROS 2) | General practice patients (305 nurse practitioners 343 doctors) | General practice (4) | 4 Nurse practitioners (3); 28 doctors | Patient views of service; return consultations | Variability across sites |
Jones et al 1998W30 | Simulated patients requesting primary care (9 nurse practitioners; 9 doctors) | Primary care (6) | 3 Nurse practitioners (4); 3 doctors | Frequency of asking about urinary incontinence | Small study. Sex bias of providers. 26% of providers realised they were seeing a simulated patient |
Meek et al 1998W31 | 20 radiographs of distal limbs for interpretation by senior house officer and nurse practitioners | Emergency department (13) | 58 Nurse practitioners (4); 84 doctors | Quality of care: correct interpretation of radiographs | Comparatively few films. Not reported whether assessor was blind |
Overton Brown and Anthony 1998W32 | 50 radiographs and case histories to be interpreted and compared with consultant radiologist gold standard | Emergency department (1) | 7 Nurse practitioners (3); 14 doctors | Quality of care: accuracy of interpretation of distal radiographs | Uses receiver operating characteristic method. This analysis gives graphic representation of whole spectrum of sensitivity and specificity decisions |
Reveley 1998W33 | Patients attending for same day appointments (113 nurse practitioners; 173 doctors) | General practice (1) | 1 Nurse practitioner (1); 7 doctors | Patient perceptions; length of consultations; prescriptions; referrals | Pilot study. Differences in organisation of care between providers. Interviews non-blind, subjective, fewer doctor than nurse practitioner patients, no formal assessment of satisfaction, based on convenience sample. Confounding sex bias |
Byrne et al 2000W34 | Patients with minor injuries (57 nurse practitioners; 57 doctors) | Emergency department, minor accident treatment centre (2) | Nurse practitioners (4) not reported; doctors not reported | Patient satisfaction | Three different settings compared. Results for the two most similar settings (emergency department and minor injury department attached to an emergency department) have been included. Doctors data gathered in June and July but nurse practitioners gathered in September to January |
Cox and Jones2000W35 | Patients attending practice with sore throat (188 nurse practitioners; 247 doctors) | General practice (1) | Nurse practitioners (3) not reported; doctors not reported | Patient satisfaction; resolution of symptoms at 5 days; follow up at 1 month of patients with unresolved symptoms; use of analgesia; return consultation rates; prescriptions | Patients self selected provider. Nurse practitioners saw younger and probably less ill patients. Follow up by unblinded researcher |
*(1)=Recognised nurse practitioner programme in higher education institution
leading to qualification at degree level or above; (2)=extended training
in higher education institution, relevant to practice as nurse practitioner,
leading to award that is less than degree level; (3)=extended training
outside higher education institution relevant to enhanced practice as nurse
practitioner; (4)=not possible to assign qualification.
Table C Methodological quality of randomised
controlled trials
Reference |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sackett et al 1974W1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hoekelman 1975W3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Burnip et al 1976W4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chambers et al 1978W5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winter 1981W6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooper 2001W7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sakr et al 1999W8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shum et al 2000W11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Venning et al 2000W12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kinnersley et al 2000W9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mundinger et al 2000W10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
?=Unclear or some measures only.
Table D Methodological quality of observational
studies
Reference |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richards and de Castro 1973W13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russo et al 1975W14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Komaroff et al 1976W16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linn 1976W15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
De Angelis and McHugh 1977W17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodman and Perrin 1978W18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graham 1978W19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hastings et al 1980W20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salkever et al 1982W21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powers et al 1984W22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dunn and Higgins 1986W23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salisbury and Tettersell 1988W24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campbell et al 1990W25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhee and Dermyer 1995W26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freij et al 1996W27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myers et al 1997W28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jones and Bunner 1998W30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meek et al 1998W31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bond et al 1998W29 (EROS 2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overton-Brown and Anthony 1998W32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reveley 1998W33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Byrne et al 2000W34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cox and Jones 2000W35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
?=Unclear or some measures only.
Table E Health status and health related quality of life (randomised controlled trials)
Reference | Measure used | Results | Conclusion | Comment |
Sackett et al 1974W1(reports Spitzer et al 1974W2) | Measures of physical function adapted from previous instruments*; health index* used for measures of emotional and social function | Unimpaired mobility, vision, hearing: nurse practitioners 255/296 (86%), doctors 458/521 (88%). Able to undertake daily activities: nurse practitioners 266/296 (90%), doctors 469/521 (90%). Freedom from bed days: nurse practitioners 255/296 (86%), doctors 453/521 (87%). Emotional function indices (1=good): nurse practitioners mean 0.583 (SD 0.187), doctors mean 0.577 (SD 0.187). Social function indices: nurse practitioners mean 0.832 (SD 0.249), doctors mean 0.839 (SD 0.274). Deaths (rate per 1000): nurse practitioners 4 (2.7), doctors 18 (6.0) | Health status measurements equivalent in both groups. Physical function compared with baseline data | Power calculation not reported. Only 67% of patients received their care exclusively from nurse practitioners; of deaths reported none of patients seeing nurse practitioners were preventable |
Chambers and West 1978W5 | WHO/ICS MCU*: health index* used for measures of emotional and social functioning | Patients classified as "healthy" (χ2 P<0.01): nurse practitioners, 181/296 (61%), doctors: 284/569 (50%). Emotional function indices: nurse practitioners comparable to doctors (χ2 P<0.01). Social function indices: nurse practitioners comparable to doctors (χ2 P<0.01) | Both groups of patients had similar outcomes; nurse group had better physical function | Power calculation not reported. Only one of each practitioner. Multiple outcomes |
Sakr et al 1999W8 | Satisfaction questionnaire incorporating health status measures* | Reported improved health: nurse practitioners, 373/409 (91.1%), doctors: 421/469 (89.8). Not improved as expected (P=0.41): nurse practitioners, 36/409 (8.8%), doctors: 48/469 (10.2%). Not returned to normal activities (P=0.45): nurse practitioners:74/424 (17.5%), doctors: 76/488 (15.6%) | No significant difference between groups | Power calculation not reported |
Kinnersley et al 2000W9 | Satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ) incorporating health status measures | Resolution of symptoms: nurse practitioners 401/484 (82.8%), doctors 450/529 (85.1%). Resolution of concerns: nurse practitioners 221/484 (45.7%), doctors 233/529 (44.0%) | No significant differences between groups | Prior power calculation |
Mundinger et al 2000W10 | Short form SF-36* | Physical summary (P=0.92): nurse practitioners mean 40.83 (SD 11.58), doctors mean 40.29 (SD 11.42). Mental summary (P=0.92): nurse practitioners mean 44.64 (SD 13.75), doctors mean 44.29 (SD 13.58). Physiological measures: no differences in physiological status for asthma (P=0.77) and diabetes patients (P=0.82). Slight difference in diastolic blood pressure 82 v 85 mm Hg (P=0.04) | No significant differences in health outcomes at six months follow up. Difference in hypertension measurements only marginally of significance | Prior power calculation |
Shum et al 2000W11 | Satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ) incorporating health status measures | Patients rate condition cured or improved (P=0.906): nurse practitioners 558/672 (83%), doctors 546/661 (82.6%) | Health outcomes not significantly different between practitioners | Prior power calculation. Nurses had longer consultation times |
Venning et al 2000W12 | SF-36* | Physical functioning (P=0.48): nurse practitioners mean 80.78 (SD 25.11), doctors mean 82.09 (SD 24.74) | No significant differences between the groups pre or post consultation in any dimension | Power calculation not reported |
*Validated or referenced in paper as previously tested measure.
Table F Quality of care in randomised controlled
trials
Reference | Measure | Results | Conclusion | Comment |
Spitzer et al 1974W2 | Management of 10 indicator conditions. Use of 13 common drugs | Adequate management: nurse practitioner 115/167 (69%), doctor 148/225 (66%). Adequate drug prescription: nurse practitioner 160/226 (71%), doctor 213/284 (75%) | No significant differences in quality of care between nurse practitioners and doctors | Power calculation not reported. Uncertain validity of measures |
Hoekelman 1975W3 | Physical examination of study children at age 15months by paediatrician | Abnormalities undetected: nurse practitioner 6/103 (5.8%), doctor 21/143 (14.7%) | Nurse practitioners missed fewer abnormalities | Power calculation not reported. Assessor was not blinded to provider. Different settings |
Cooper 2001W7 | Clinic referral forms completed by the reviewing doctor. Patient satisfaction questionnaire. Audit of 10% sample of notes (max score 30) | Appropriate referrals (P=0.5): nurse practitioner 31/34 (91.2%), doctor 27/28 (96.4%). Satisfactory management (P=0.25): nurse practitioner 36/38 (94.7%), doctor 28/28 (100). Patient understood advice (P=0.08): nurse practitioner 79.9/85 (94.1%), doctor 65.9/78 (84.6%). Mean satisfaction scores (P=0.06): nurse practitioner (n=11) 26.45, doctor (n=9) 24.52. No missed injury: nurse practitioner 101/102 (99%), doctor 101/102 (99%) | Significant differences between nurse practitioners and doctors in patients’ understanding of advice. Nurse practitioners had a higher average score on a quality audit of notes | Study too small to have detected significant differences in outcome of missed injury rates. In two cases nurse practitioners were considered to have mismanaged patients. Assessor may not have been blinded to provider. Audit of notes by researcher but measure had been tested (r=0.68, P<0.01). Study took place during last 2 months of senior house officer rotation therefore comparatively experienced |
Sakr et al 1999W8 | A standardised record was assessed to check adequacy of care on items regarded as important in quality of care, compared to research registrar and emergency consultant | No important errors: nurse practitioner 639/704 (90.8%), doctor 745/749 (99.4%). Mechanism of injury: nurse practitioner 703/704 (99.8%); doctor 669/749 (89.3%). Accurate medical history recorded: nurse practitioner 533/704 (76%), doctor 410/749 (55%). Clinically important recording error (P=0.01): nurse practitioner 1/704 (0.15%), doctor 11/749 (1.5%). Examination: nurse practitioner 678/704 (96.3%), doctor 729/749 (97.3%). Treatment or advice: nurse practitioner 673/704 (95.6%), doctor 705/749 (94.1%). Radiograph interpretation: nurse practitioner 428/440 (97.2%), doctor 457/473 (96.6%). Follow up: nurse practitioner 684/704 (97.2%), doctor 714/749 (95.3%) | Nurse practitioner care was equivalent to doctors and better in accurate recording of the medical history and interpretation of radiographs | |
Kinnersley et al 2000W9 | Patient satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ) with additional items regarding understanding of care given by provider | Cause of illness: odds ratio 0.58
(95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.76); nurse practitioner 501/652 (81%),
doctor 491/716 (72%). Relief of symptoms: 0.32 (0.24 to 0.43); nurse practitioner
548/652 (86%), doctor 467/716 (68%). Act if problem persists: 0.61 (0.41
to 0.90); nurse practitioner 584/652 (93%), doctor 604/716 (88%). How to
reduce recurrence: 0.19 (0.09 to 0.38) to 1.57 (0.46 to 5.23) (range reported
because odds ratios varied significantly across practices ) nurse practitioner
205/652 (34%), doctor 139/716 (21%). Patient given advice about self medication
(χ2=21.123, P<0.001); nurse practitioner
193/868 (22.2%), doctor 119/871 (13.7%)
| Patients of nurse practitioners received more information about prevention, cause, relief of symptoms, and what to do if the problem persisted than did those of doctors | Only similar, small numbers of patients in both groups would self manage in future. Authors suggest this might be due to prescriptions validating the decision to go to see general practitioner |
Shum et al 2000W11 | Doctor and nurse practitioner report of healthcare behaviour | Patient given advice about general self management (χ2=117.766, P<0.001); nurse practitioner 709/868 (81.7%), doctor 502/871 (57.6) | Patients of nurse practitioners were given more information on self management and self medication | Not validated measure |
W1. Sackett DL, Spitzer WO, Gent M, Roberts RS. The Burlington randomized trial of the nurse practitioner: health outcomes of patients. Ann Intern Med 1974;80:137-42.
W2. Spitzer WO, Sackett DL, Sibley JC, Roberts RS, Gent M, Kergin DJ. The Burlington randomized trial of the nurse practitioner. N Engl J Med 1974;290:251-6.
W3. Hoekelman RA. What constitutes adequate well-baby care? Pediatrics 1975;55:313-26.
W4. Burnip R, Erickson R, Barr GD, Shinefield H, Schoen EJ. Well-child care by pediatric nurse practitioners in a large group practice. Am J Dis Child 1976;130:51-5.
W5. Chambers LW, West AE. The St John’s randomized trial of the family practice nurse: health outcomes of patients. Int J Epidemiol 1978;7:153-61.
W6. Winter C. Quality health care: patient assessment. 1981. MSc thesis. Long Beach, CA: California State University, 1981.
W7. Cooper M. An evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the emergency nurse practitioner in the treatment of patients with minor injuries: a pilot study. Glasgow: Accident and Emergency, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 2001. (Typescript.)
W8. Sakr M, Angus J, Perrin J, Nixon C, Nicholl J, Wardrope J. Care of minor injuries by emergency nurse practitioners or junior doctors: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1999;354:1321-6.
W9. Kinnersley P, Anderson E, Parry K, Clement J, Archard L, Turton P. Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting "same day" consultations in primary care. BMJ 2000;320:1043-8.
W10. Mundinger MO, Kane RL, Lenz ER, Totten AM, Tsai W-Y, Cleary PD. Primary care outcomes in patients treated by nurse practitioners or physicians: a randomized trial. JAMA 2000;283:59-68.
W11. Shum C, Humphreys A, Wheeler D, Cochrane MA, Skoda S, Clement S. Nurse management of patients with minor illnesses in general practice: multicentre, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2000;320:1038-43.
W12. Venning P, Durie A, Roland M, Roberts C, Leese B. Randomised controlled trial comparing cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners in primary care. BMJ 2000;320:1048-53.
W13. Richards SJ, de Castro FJ. Communication with patients: a parameter in evaluating nurse practitioners. Mo Med 1973;70:719-720.
W14. Russo RM, Gururaj VJ, Bunye AS, Kim YH, Ner S. Triage abilities of nurse practitioner vs pediatrician. Am J D is Child 1975;129:673-5.
W15. Linn LS. Patient acceptance of the family nurse practitioner. Med Care 1976;14:357-64.
W16. Komaroff AL, Sawayer K, Flatley M, Browne C. Nurse practitioner management of common respiratory and genito-urinary infections using protocols. Nurs Res 1976;25:84-9.
W17. De Angelis C, McHugh M. The effectiveness of various health personnel as triage agents. J Community Health 1977;2:268-77.
W18. Goodman HC, Perrin EC. Evening telephone call management by nurse practitioners and physicians. Nurs Res 1978;27:233-7.
W19. Graham N. A quality of care assessment: pediatricians and pediatric nurse practitioners. Image 1978;10:41-8.
W20. Hastings GE, Vick L, Lee G, Sasmor L, Natiello TA, Sanders JH. Nurse practitioners in a jailhouse clinic. Med Care 1980;18:731-44.
W21. Salkever DS, Skinner E, Steinwachs DM, Katz H. Episode-based efficiency comparisons for physicians and nurse practitioners. Med Care 1982;20:143-53.
W22. Powers MJ, Jalowiec A, Reichelt PA. Nurse practitioner and physician care compared for nonurgent emergency room patients. Nurse Pract 1984;9:39-52.
W23. Dunn EV, Higgins CA. Health problems encountered by three levels of providers in a remote setting. Am J Public Health 1986;76:154-9.
W24. Salisbury CJ, Tettersell MJ. Comparison of the work of a nurse practitioner with that of a general-practitioner. J R Coll Gen Pract 1988;38:314-6.
W25. Campbell JD, Mauksch HO, Neikirk HJ, Hosokawa MC. Collaborative practice and provider styles of delivering health care. Soc Sci Med 1990;30:1359-65.
W26. Rhee KJ, Dermyer AL. Patient satisfaction with a nurse practitioner in a university emergency service. Ann Emerg Med 1995;26:130-2.
W27. Freij RM, Duffy T, Hackett D, Cunningham D, Fothergill J. Radiographic interpretation by nurse practitioners in a minor injuries unit. J Accid Emerg Med 1996;13:41-3.
W28. Myers PC, Lenci B, Sheldon MG. A nurse practitioner as the first point of contact for urgent medical problems in a general practice setting. Fam Pract 1997;14:492-7.
W29. Bond S, Cunningham W, Sargeant J, Derrick S, Beck S, Rawes G. Evaluation of nurse practitioners in general practice in Northumberland (the EROS projects 1&2). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, 1998.
W30. Jones TV, Bunner SH. Approaches to urinary incontinence in a rural population: a comparison of physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and family physicians. J Am Board Fam Pract 1998;11:207-15.
W31. Meek S, Kendall J, Porter J, Freij R. Can accident and emergency nurse practitioners interpret radiographs? A multicentre study. J Accid Emerg Med 1998;15:105-7.
W32. Overton-Brown P, Anthony D. Towards a partnership in care: nurses’ and doctors’ interpretation of extremity trauma radiology. J Adv Nurs 1998;27:890-6.
W33. Reveley S. The role of the triage nurse practitioner in general medical practice: an analysis of the role. J Adv Nurs 1998;28:584-91.
W34. Byrne G, Richardson M, Brunsdon J, Patel A. Patient satisfaction with emergency nurse practitioners in A & E. J Clin Nurs 2000;9:83-92.
W35. Cox C. Jones M.Evaluation of the management of patients
with sore throats by practice nurses and GPs. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:872-6.