Health policy in England is seeking to minimise hospital use and provide access to services in a primary healthcare setting and maximise skill-mix, driven by issues such as cost and access. The aim of this review was to determine the effectiveness of increased use of skill-mix and service transfer within general and oral healthcare. Secondary outcome measures were related to cost, quality, access, health outcomes and satisfaction.
Methods
Data sources were the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination DARE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO from 1996 to August 2008. The reference lists of relevant papers were scanned to identify additional studies.
Data selection
A rapid appraisal of systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, controlled trials and service evaluations in relation to specialist services, practitioners with a special interest, medical and dental, nursing and dental care professionals, together with evidence of service shifts from secondary to primary care was undertaken.
Results
A total of 206 papers were reviewed. All titles and abstracts of articles and papers found were extracted and validated according to predefined criteria. They were screened for relevance by two researchers, who assessed trial quality and extracted data. Twenty-six papers met the inclusion criteria. The literature demonstrated limited evidence of the cost-effectiveness and health outcomes associated with changes in setting and skill-mix. However, there was evidence of improved access, patient and professional satisfaction.
Conclusions
There is an overwhelming need for well-designed interventions with robust evaluation to examine cost-effectiveness and benefits to patients and the health workforce.
Department of Health.Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: Making it Happen.London: DH; 2006.
2.
Department of Health.A High Quality Workforce: NHS Next Stage Review. London: DH; 2008.
3.
Department of Health.Practitioners With Special Interests: Bringing Services Closer to Patients. London: DH; 2003.
4.
Department of Health.Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for the Community. London: HM Government/DH; 2006.
5.
Department of Health.High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report. London: DH; 2008.
6.
Department of Health/Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK).Implementing a Scheme for Dentists with Special Interests (DwSIs). London: DH & FGDP(UK); 2004.
7.
Department of Health/Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK).Guidelines for the Appointment of Dentists With Special Interests (DwSIs) in Orthodontics. London: DH & FGDP(UK); 2006.
8.
Department of Health/Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK).Guidelines for the Appointment of Dentists With Special Interests (DwSIs) in Minor Oral Surgery. London: DH & FGDP(UK); 2006.
9.
Department of Health/Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK).Guidelines for the Appointment of Dentists With Special Interests (DwSIs) in Periodontics. London: DH & FGDP(UK); 2006.
10.
Department of Health/Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK).Guidelines for the Appointment of Dentists With Special Interests (DwSIs) in Endodontics. London: DH & FGDP(UK); 2006.
11.
DuboisC-A, McKeeM, NolteE, editors. Human Resources for Health in Europe. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2006.
12.
GallagherJE, WilsonNHF.The future dental workforce?Br Dent J. 2009;206:195–9.
13.
DussaultG, DuboisC-A.Human resources for health policies: a critical component in health policies. Hum Resourc Health.2003;1:1.
14.
DussaultG, FranceschiniM.Not enough there, too many here: understanding geographical imbalances in the distribution of the health workforce. Hum Resourc Health.2006;4:12.
15.
General Dental Council.The Registration of Dental Care Professionals. London: GDC; 2005.
16.
Department of Health.NHS Dentistry: Options for Change. London: DH; 2002.
GlasziouP, IrwigL, BainC, ColditzG.Systematic Reviews in Health Care: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
19.
RichardsonA, MedinaJ, BrownV, SitziaJ.Patients’ needs assessment in cancer care: a review of assessment tools. Support Care Cancer.2007;15:1125–44.
20.
GruenRL, WeeramanthriTS, KnightSE, BailieRS.Specialist outreach clinics in primary care and rural hospital settings (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2003;(4): CD003798.
21.
PowellJ.Systematic review of outreach clinics in primary care in the UK. J Health Serv Res Policy.2002;7:177–83.
22.
BowerP, RowlandN.Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2006;3:Art No. CD001025.
23.
BowlingA, BondM.A national evaluation of specialists’ clinics in primary care settings. Br J Gen Pract.2001;51:264–9.
24.
BondM, BowlingA, AberyA.Evaluation of outreach clinics held by specialists in general practice in England. J Epidemiol Community Health.2000;54:149–56.
25.
Audit Commission.Quicker Treatment Closer to Home. London: Audit Commission; 2004.
26.
BirchK.Developing Practitioners with Special Interest (PwSI) Services: Managing the Risks. London: National Primary and Care Trust Development Programme (NatPaCT); 2003.
27.
CoastJ, NobleS, NobleA, HorrocksS, AsimO, PetersTJ, . Economic evaluation of a general practitioner with special interests led dermatology service in primary care. BMJ.2005;331:1444–9.
28.
CooperSF.Are GPs who specialise in dermatology effective? Cost calculations were impenetrable. BMJ.2006;332:54.
29.
Department of Health.Practitioners With Special Interests: Implementing a Scheme for Allied Health Professionals with Special Interests. London: DH; 2003.
30.
DhumaleR.Feasibility study of hernia surgery in a general practice setting. Br J Gen Pract.2004;54:604–7.
31.
DuckettS, CasserlyH.Orthopaedic GP fellowship: does it work?Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2003;85:195–6.
32.
FitzmauriceDA.General practitioners with special clinical interests: evidence for effectiveness exists. BMJ.2003;327:933.
33.
GeradaC, WrightN, KeenJ.The general practitioner with a special interest: new opportunities or the end of the generalist practitioner?Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52:796–8.
HoneyS, SmallN, AliS.General practitioners with special interests: the potential benefits and possible risks for primary care. Prim Health Care Res Dev.2005;6:5–16.
36.
LapsleyPM.Are GPs who specialise in dermatology effective? Be wary of generalising research conclusions [letter]. BMJ.2006;332:53–4.
37.
MaddisonP, JonesJ, BreslinA, BartonC, FleurJ, LewisR.Improved access and targeting of musculoskeletal services in northwest Wales: targeted early access to musculoskeletal services (TEAMS) programme. BMJ.2004;329:1325–7.
38.
MohannaK, ChambersR.Clinical assistant posts for general practitioners. BMJ Career Focus.2001 Oct 20:2–3.
39.
PinnockH, NetuveliG, PriceD, SheikhA.General practitioners with a special interest in respiratory medicine: national survey of UK primary care organisations. BMC Health Serv Res.2005;5:40.
40.
PringleM.Please mind the gap: addressing the divide between primary and secondary care. Clin Med.2001;1:172–4.
41.
RolandM.General practitioners with special interests—not a cheap option. Commentary. BMJ.2005;331:1448–9.
42.
SalisburyC, NobleA, HorrocksS, CrosbyZ, HarrisonV, CoastJ, . Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial. BMJ.2005;331:1441–6.
43.
ScallanS, WhileR, RuscoeM.Guidance on Developing New Ways of Working in Primary Care Services Including the Development of GPs and Practitioners with Special Interests. Gloucester: Severn and Wessex Deaneries, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA Workforce Development Confederation; 2006. Available via: www.gloslmc.com
44.
SouthallE.General practitioners with special clinical interests: experience has been successful. BMJ.2003;327:933.
45.
NoconA, RhodesPJ, WrightJP, EasthamJ, WilliamsDRR, HarrisonSR, . Specialist general practitioners and diabetes clinics in primary care: a qualitative and descriptive evaluation. Diabet Med.2004;21:32–8.
46.
TijhuisGJ, ZwindermanAH, HazesJM, BreedveldFC, VlielandPM.Two-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial of a clinical nurse specialist intervention, inpatient, and day patient team care in rheumatoid arthritis. J Adv Nurs.2003;41:34–43.
47.
Van den HoutWB, TijhuisGJ, HazesJM, BreedveldFC, VlietVlieland TP.Cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis of multidisciplinary care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomise comparison of clinical nurse specialist care, inpatient team care, and day patient team care. Ann Rheum Dis.2003;62:308–15.
48.
KinnersleyP, AndersonE, ParryK, ClementJ, ArchardL, TurtonP, . Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting “same day” consultations in primary care. BMJ.2000;320:1043–8.
49.
GradwellC, ThomasKS, EnglishJS, WilliamsHC.A randomized controlled trial of nurse follow-up clinics: do they help patients and do they free up consultants’ time. Br J Dermatol.2002;147:513–7.
50.
CourtenayM, CareyN.Nurse-led care in dermatology: a review of the literature. Br J Dermatol.2006;154:1–6.
51.
MaruthachalamK, StokerE, NicholsonG, HorganAF.Nurse led flexible sigmoidoscopy in primary care: the first thousand patients. Colorectal Dis.2005;8:557–62.
52.
LaurantM, ReevesD, HermensR, BraspenningJ, GrolR, SibbaldB.Substitution of doctors by nurses in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2005;18(2):CD001271.
53.
CruickshankS, KennedyC, LockhartK, DosserI, DallasL.Specialist breast care nurses for supportive care of women with breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2008;(1):CD005634.
54.
HollinghurstS, HorrocksS, AndersonE, SalisburyC.Comparing the cost of nurse practitioners and GPs in primary care: modelling economic data from randomised trials. Br J Gen Pract.2006;56:530–5.
55.
HarrisRV, HaycoxA.The role of team dentistry in improving access to dental care in the UK. Br Dent J.2001;190:353–6.
56.
HarrisR, BurnsideG.The role of dental therapists working in four personal dental service pilots: type of patients seen, work undertaken and cost-effectiveness within the context of the dental practice. Br Dent J.2004;197:491–6.
57.
BlinkhornAS, GratrixD, HollowayPJ, Wainwright-StringerYM, WardSJ, WorthingtonHV.A cluster randomised, controlled trial of the value of dental health educators in general dental practice. Br Dent J.2003;195:395–400.
58.
GallowayJ, GorhamJ, LambertM, RichardsD, RussellD, RussellI, . The Professionals Complementary to Dentistry: Systematic Review and Synthesis. York: Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); 2004.
59.
SinghD.Making the Shift: Key Success Factors, a Rapid Review of Best Practice in Shifting Hospital Care into the Community. Birmingham: Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham and NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement; 2006.
60.
GodberG, RobinsonR, SteinerA.Economic evaluation and the shifting balance towards primary care: definitions, evidence and methodological issues. Health Econ.1997;6:275–94.
61.
DarziA.Healthcare for London: A Framework for Action. London: NHS London; 2007.
62.
Department of Health.High Quality Care for All. NHS Next Stage Review Final Report by Lord Darzi. London: Stationery Office; 2008.
63.
ScottA.Primary or secondary care?What can economics contribute to evaluation at the interface? J Public Health Med. 1996;18:19–26.
64.
ScallanS, SmithF, PittsJ, WhileR.General practitioners with special interests (GPwSIs): what role for deaneries?Educ Prim Care. 2006;17:198–205.
65.
DyerTA, RobinsonPG.Exploring the social acceptability of skill-mix in dentistry. Int Dent J.2008;58:173–80.
66.
GodsonJH, WilliamsSA, CsikarJI, BradleyS, RowbothamJS.Dental therapy in the United Kingdom: part 2. A survey of reported working practices. Br Dent J.2009;207:417–23.
67.
RowbothamJS, GodsonJH, WilliamsSA, CsikarJI, BradleyS.Dental therapy in the United Kingdom: part 1. Developments in therapists’ training and role. Br Dent J.2009;207:355–9.
68.
KendallN.Improving access to oral surgery services in primary care. Prim Dent Care.2009;16:137–42.
