A prospective cohort study assessing clinical referral management & workforce allocation within a UK regional medical genetics service

Abstract Ensuring patient access to genomic information in the face of increasing demand requires clinicians to develop innovative ways of working. This paper presents the first empirical prospective observational cohort study of UK multi-disciplinary genetic service delivery. It describes and explores collaborative working practices including the utilisation and role of clinical geneticists and non-medical genetic counsellors. Six hundred and fifty new patients referred to a regional genetics service were tracked through 850 clinical contacts until discharge. Referral decisions regarding allocation of lead health professional assigned to the case were monitored, including the use of initial clinical contact guidelines. Significant differences were found in the cases led by genetic counsellors and those led by clinical geneticists. Around a sixth, 16.8% (109/650) of referrals were dealt with by a letter back to the referrer or re-directed to another service provider and 14.8% (80/541) of the remaining patients chose not to schedule an appointment. Of the remaining 461 patients, genetic counsellors were allocated as lead health professional for 46.2% (213/461). A further 61 patients did not attend. Of those who did, 86% (345/400) were discharged after one or two appointments. Genetic counsellors contributed to 95% (784/825) of total patient contacts. They provided 93.7% (395/432) of initial contacts and 26.8% (106/395) of patients were discharged at that point. The information from this study informed a planned service re-design. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of different models of collaborative multi-disciplinary working within genetics services. Keywords (MeSH terms) Genetic Services, Genetic Counseling, Interdisciplinary Communication, Cohort Studies, Delivery of Healthcare, Referral and Consultation

Substitution of physicians by nurses in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background In many countries, substitution of physicians by nurses has become common due to the shortage of physicians and the need for high-quality, affordable care, especially for chronic and multi-morbid patients. We examined the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and care costs of physician-nurse substitution in primary care. Methods We systematically searched OVID Medline and Embase, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, up to August 2012; selected and critically appraised published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared nurse-led care with care by primary care physicians on patient satisfaction, Quality of Life (QoL), hospital admission, mortality and costs of healthcare. We assessed the individual study risk of bias, calculated the study-specific and pooled relative risks (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD); and performed fixed-effects meta-analyses. Results 24 RCTs (38,974 participants) and 2 economic studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analyses showed higher overall scores of patient satisfaction with nurse-led care (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.23), in RCTs of single contact or urgent care, short (less than 6 months) follow-up episodes and in small trials (N 200) RCTs. Higher quality RCTs (with better allocation concealment and less attrition) showed higher rates of hospital admissions and mortality with nurse-led care albeit less or not significant. The results seemed more consistent across nurse practitioners than with registered or licensed nurses. The effects of nurse-led care on QoL and costs were difficult to interpret due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, valuation of resources and the small number of studies. Conclusions The available evidence continues to be limited by the quality of the research considered. Nurse-led care seems to have a positive effect on patient satisfaction, hospital admission and mortality. This important finding should be confirmed and the determinants of this effect should be assessed in further, larger and more methodically rigorous research