The aim of this study were to compare nurse prescribers and non-prescribers managing people with diabetes in general practice regarding: (a) patient characteristics; (b) activities and processes of care; (c) patient outcomes (self-management, clinical indicators, satisfaction) and (d) resource implications and costs.
Over 28,000 nurses in the UK can prescribe the same medicines as doctors provided that it is in their level of experience and competence. Over 30%, mostly in general practice, prescribe medicines for patients with diabetes.
A comparative case study.
Nurses managing care of people with Type 2 diabetes were recruited in twelve general practices in England; six could prescribe, six could not. Patients, recruited by nurses, were followed up for 6 months (2011-2012).
The patient sample comprised 131 in prescriber sites, 83 in non-prescriber sites. Patients of prescribers had been diagnosed and cared for by the nurse longer than those of non-prescribers. There were no differences in reported self-care activities or HbA1c test results between the patients of prescribers and non-prescribers. Mean HbA1c decreased significantly in both groups over 6 months. Patients of prescribers were more satisfied. Consultation duration was longer for prescribers (by average of 7·7 minutes). Non-prescribing nurses sought support from other healthcare professionals more frequently. Most prescribing nurses were on a higher salary band than non-prescribers.
Clinical outcomes of patients managed by prescribing and non-prescribing diabetes nurses are similar. Prescribing nurses had longer relationships with their patients and longer consultations, possibly contributing to higher satisfaction with care. Employment costs of prescribing nurses are potentially higher.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
7
6%
Social Sciences
7
6%
Business, Management and Accounting
3
3%
Other
8
7%
Unknown
36
33%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#794,913
of 32,289,607 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Advanced Nursing
#172
of 7,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,832
of 302,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Advanced Nursing
#7
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,289,607 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 302,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
