TY - JOUR

T1 - General medical services by non-medical health professionals: a systematic quantitative review of economic evaluations in primary care

AU - Anthony, Bethany F

AU - Surgey, Alun

AU - Hiscock, Julia

AU - Williams, Nefyn H

AU - Charles, Joanna M

N1 - © British Journal of General Practice 2019.

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - BACKGROUND:Previous systematic reviews have found that nurses and pharmacists can provide equivalent, or higher, quality of care for some tasks performed by GPs in primary care. There is a lack of economic evidence for this substitution. AIM:To explore the costs and outcomes of role substitution between GPs and nurses, pharmacists, and allied health professionals in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING:A systematic review of economic evaluations exploring role substitution of allied health professionals in primary care was conducted. Role substitution was defined as 'the substitution of work that was previously completed by a GP in the past and is now completed by a nurse or allied health professional'. METHOD:The following databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The review followed guidance from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS:Six economic evaluations were identified. There was some limited evidence that nurse-led care for common minor health problems was cost-effective compared with GP care, and that nurse-led interventions for chronic fatigue syndrome and pharmacy-led services for the medicines management of coronary heart disease and chronic pain were not. In South Korea, community health practitioners delivered primary care services for half the cost of physicians. The review did not identify studies for other allied health professionals such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists. CONCLUSION:There is limited economic evidence for role substitution in primary care; more economic evaluations are needed.

AB - BACKGROUND:Previous systematic reviews have found that nurses and pharmacists can provide equivalent, or higher, quality of care for some tasks performed by GPs in primary care. There is a lack of economic evidence for this substitution. AIM:To explore the costs and outcomes of role substitution between GPs and nurses, pharmacists, and allied health professionals in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING:A systematic review of economic evaluations exploring role substitution of allied health professionals in primary care was conducted. Role substitution was defined as 'the substitution of work that was previously completed by a GP in the past and is now completed by a nurse or allied health professional'. METHOD:The following databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The review followed guidance from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS:Six economic evaluations were identified. There was some limited evidence that nurse-led care for common minor health problems was cost-effective compared with GP care, and that nurse-led interventions for chronic fatigue syndrome and pharmacy-led services for the medicines management of coronary heart disease and chronic pain were not. In South Korea, community health practitioners delivered primary care services for half the cost of physicians. The review did not identify studies for other allied health professionals such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists. CONCLUSION:There is limited economic evidence for role substitution in primary care; more economic evaluations are needed.

KW - Allied Health Personnel

KW - Cost-Benefit Analysis

KW - General Practitioners

KW - Humans

KW - Nurse Practitioners

KW - Pharmacists

KW - Primary Health Care/economics

KW - Professional Role

U2 - 10.3399/bjgp19X702425

DO - 10.3399/bjgp19X702425

M3 - Article

C2 - 31015223

VL - 69

SP - e304-e313

JO - British Journal of General Practice

JF - British Journal of General Practice

SN - 0960-1643

IS - 682

ER -