Substituting physicians with nurse practitioners, physician assistants or nurses in nursing homes: protocol for a realist evaluation case study

INTRODUCTION

In developed countries, substituting physicians with nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurses (physician substitution) occurs in nursing homes as an answer to the challenges related to the ageing population and the shortage of staff, as well as to guarantee the quality of nursing home care. However, there is great diversity in how physician substitution in nursing homes is modelled and it is unknown how it can best contribute to the quality of healthcare. This study aims to gain insight into how physician substitution is modelled and whether it contributes to perceived quality of healthcare. Second, this study aims to provide insight into the elements of physician substitution that contribute to quality of healthcare.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will use a multiple-case study design that draws upon realist evaluation principles. The realist evaluation is based on four concepts for explaining and understanding interventions: context, mechanism, outcome and context-mechanism-outcome configuration. The following steps will be taken: (1) developing a theory, (2) conducting seven case studies, (3) analysing outcome patterns after each case and a cross-case analysis at the end and (4) revising the initial theory.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The research ethics committee of the region Arnhem Nijmegen in the Netherlands concluded that this study does not fall within the scope of the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) (registration number 2015/1914). Before the start of the study, the Board of Directors of the nursing home organisations will be informed verbally and by letter and will also be asked for informed consent. In addition, all participants will be informed verbally and by letter and will be asked for informed consent. Findings will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal, international and national conferences, national professional associations and policy partners in national government.

Outcomes for depression and anxiety in primary care and details of treatment: a naturalistic longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence as to whether or not guideline concordant care in general practice results in better clinical outcomes for people with anxiety and depression. This study aims to determine possible associations between guideline concordant care and clinical outcomes in general practice patients with depression and anxiety, and identify patient and treatment characteristics associated with clinical improvement.

METHODS

This study forms part of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).Adult patients, recruited in general practice (67 GPs), were interviewed to assess DSM-IV diagnoses during baseline assessment of NESDA, and also completed questionnaires measuring symptom severity, received care, socio-demographic variables and social support both at baseline and 12 months later. The definition of guideline adherence was based on an algorithm on care received. Information on guideline adherence was obtained from GP medical records.

RESULTS

721 patients with a current (6-month recency) anxiety or depressive disorder participated. While patients who received guideline concordant care (N=281) suffered from more severe symptoms than patients who received non-guideline concordant care (N=440), both groups showed equal improvement in their depressive or anxiety symptoms after 12 months. Patients who (still) had moderate or severe symptoms at follow-up, were more often unemployed, had smaller personal networks and more severe depressive symptoms at baseline than patients with mild symptoms at follow-up. The particular type of treatment followed made no difference to clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The added value of guideline concordant care could not be demonstrated in this study. Symptom severity, employment status, social support and comorbidity of anxiety and depression all play a role in poor clinical outcomes.