The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review

Re

Th

SaMaa InsbDecNIVdDe

Ams

International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2013) xxxxxx

A R

Artic

Rece

Rece

Acce

Keyw

Dru

Nur

Nur

Phy

Revi

Syst

*

1

G Model

NS-2329; No. of Pages 14

Pl(2

002

httpview

e effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review

nne C. Gielen a,1, Janneke Dekker b,1, Anneke L. Francke c,d, Patriek Mistiaen c,rieke Kroezen c,1,*

titute of Nursing Studies of HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

partment of Neonatology of LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands

EL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands

partment of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research (EMGO+) of VU University Medical Center,

terdam, The Netherlands

T I C L E I N F O

le history:

ived 29 September 2013

ived in revised form 5 December 2013

pted 9 December 2013

ords:

g prescriptions

ses

se practitioners

sicians

ew

ematic

A B S T R A C T

Background: In 2008, we conducted a systematic review on the effects of nurse prescribing

using studies with a comparative design. In view of the growing number of countries that

are introducing nurse prescribing and the fact that several studies into nurse prescribing

have been conducted recently, there is a need for an updated review to reassess the

available information on the effects of nurse prescribing when compared to physician

prescribing.

Objective: To identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence on the effects of nurse

prescribing when compared to physician prescribing on the quantity and types of

medication prescribed and on patient outcomes.

Design: A systematic review.

Data sources: In addition to the previous review, which covered the literature up to 2005,

11 literature databases and four websites were searched for relevant studies from January

2006 up to January 2012 without limitations as to language or country. Moreover, full-text

copies of all studies included in the previous review were reviewed.

Review methods: A three-stage inclusion process, consisting of an initial sifting, checking

full-text papers for inclusion criteria and methodological assessment, was performed

independently by two reviewers. Data on effects were synthesised using narrative and

tabular methods.

Results: Thirty-ve studies met the inclusion criteria. All but ve studies had a high risk of

bias. Nurses prescribe in comparable ways to physicians. They prescribe for equal numbers

of patients and prescribe comparable types and doses of medicines. Studies comparing the

total amount of medication prescribed by nurses and doctors show mixed results. There

appear to be few differences between nurses and physicians in patient health outcomes:

clinical parameters were the same or better for treatment by nurses, perceived quality of

care was similar or better and patients treated by nurses were just as satised or more

satised.

Conclusions: The effects of nurse prescribing on medication and patient outcomes seem

positive when compared to physician prescribing. However, conclusions must remain

tentative due to methodological weaknesses in this body of research. More randomised

controlled designs in the eld of nurse prescribing are required for denitive conclusions

about the effects of nurse prescribing.

2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 2729836.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Kroezen).

These authors contributed equally to this study.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Nursing Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/ijns

0-7489/$ see front matter 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003ease cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

S.C. Gielen et al. / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2013) xxxxxx2

G Model

NS-2329; No. of Pages 14 Over the last two decades, the number of countries inwhich nurses are legally permitted to prescribe medica-tion has grown considerably.

In 2008, we conducted a systematic review on the effectsof nurse prescribing using studies with a comparativedesign to compare the effects of nurse prescribing tophysician prescribing.

In view of the growing number of countries that areintroducing nurse prescribing and the fact that severalstudies into nurse prescribing have been conductedrecently, there is a need for an updated review.

What this paper adds

Our updated systematic review suggests that nursesprescribe for a wide range of patients and in comparableways to physicians.

Patients were generally more or equally satised withthe care provided by nurses compared to the traditionalcare provided by physicians.

Conclusions must remain tentative due to methodolo-gical weaknesses in this body of research. Morerandomised controlled designs in the eld of nurseprescribing are required for denitive conclusions aboutthe effects of nurse prescribing.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Nurses can legally prescribe medication in quite anumber of countries nowadays, including Australia, Canada,Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa,Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and theUnited States of America (Aarts and Koppel, 2009; Ball,2009; Drennan et al., 2009; Kroezen et al., 2011, 2012;Ministry of Health WaS, 2011; Van Ruth et al., 2008). Theextension of prescribing rights to nurses has been intro-duced for several reasons. It is expected, among others, thatnurse prescribing will contribute to efcient and effectivepatient care and will improve the quality and continuity ofcare (Buchan and Calman, 2004; Department of Health,1999, 2002; Dutch House of Representatives, 2011;Emmerton et al., 2005; Kroezen et al., 2011; Ministry ofHealth WaS, 2011; Van Ruth et al., 2008). Moreover, nurseprescribing offers the potential to make better use of nursesprofessional skills, increase nurses autonomy and yieldtime savings for medical practitioners and patients (Bradleyand Nolan, 2007; Buchan and Calman, 2004; Department ofHealth, 1999; Kroezen et al., 2011; Raad voor, 2002).

Even though the term nurse prescribing sufces as adescriptor, the actual practice it refers to varies consider-ably, both within countries and internationally (Kroezenet al., 2011, 2012; Jones, 2009). Nonetheless, three generalmodels of nurse prescribing are usually distinguished inthe literature, viz. independent prescribing, supplemen-tary prescribing and prescribing based on patient groupdirections (see Box 1). This review will adhere to thisgeneral classication.

In 2008, the Netherlands Institute for Health ServicesResearch (NIVEL) conducted a systematic literaturereview of the effects of nurse prescribing using studieswith a comparative design (Van Ruth et al., 2008). In thisreview we concluded that overall, the effects of nurseprescribing appeared to be positive. However, of the 23studies that were included in the review, all but two hada high or moderate risk of bias, based on the EPOCcriteria (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation ofCare Review Group, 2002). The present systematicreview is an update of this earlier review (Van Ruthet al., 2008). Since our previous review was published,nurse prescribing has been introduced in two morecountries, viz. Finland and the Netherlands (Ministry of

Box 1. General models of nurse prescribing

Independent prescribing

Legally permitted and qualied independent prescribers are

responsible for the clinical assessment of a patient, the

establishment of a diagnosis and decisions about the appro-

priateness of medication, treatment or an appliance, including

the issuing of a prescription (Department of Health, 2010a;

Watterson et al., 2009). Prescribing usually takes place from a

limited formulary a list containing a limited and dened

number of medicines that can be prescribed or an open

formulary. This form of prescribing is also referred to as initial,

autonomous, substitutive or open prescribing (National Nur-

sing and Nursing Education Taskforce, 2006; Van Ruth et al.,

2008)

Supplementary prescribing

Supplementary prescribing is dened as a voluntary partner-

ship between an independent prescriber a doctor or a dentist

and a supplementary prescriber usually a nurse or a

pharmacist. After the initial assessment and diagnosis of a

patients condition have been carried out by the independent

prescriber, the nurse may prescribe from an open or limited

formulary and will collaborate or consult with the independent

prescriber before issuing the prescription, even though direct

supervision is not required (Department of Health, 2010b;

National Nursing and Nursing Education Taskforce, 2006;

Watterson et al., 2009)

In the United Kingdom, an important additional feature of

supplementary prescribing is the collaboration between the

independent and supplementary prescribers in drawing up a

Clinical Management Plan which needs to be approved by the

patient before implementation (Department of Health, 2010b;

Hartley, 2003). Supplementary prescribing is also known as

dependent, collaborative, semi-autonomous or complemen-

tary prescribing (National Nursing and Nursing Education

Taskforce, 2006; Van Ruth et al., 2008)

Patient group directions

Patient group directions (PGDs), formerly known as group

protocols, refer to written instructions for the supply and

administration of named medicines in an identied clinical

situation (Department of Health, 2010c; National Nursing

and Nursing Education Taskforce, 2006; Royal College of

Nursing, 2004; Van Ruth et al., 2008). Drawn up by a

multidisciplinary team, they are specically designed for a

particular group of patients with a specic condition, thus

excluding individualised prescriptions (Harris et al., 2004).

Group protocols should not be seen as independent pre-

scribing, since nurses or other health-care professionals are

only allowed to supply and administer medications within

the strict terms of a predetermined protocol, albeit using

their own assessment of patient needs (Hartley, 2003; Royal

College of Nursing, 2004)What is already known about this topic?Please cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

HeaMofromhasyeaincandcoufacconreveffe

legpre(BaothtagcarCreexaandmeoftemeIn thavtiontenBanNilsFol

thepatdesnur(BhOCCougennayappet for thatriaben(Oa sof thaconmawecomtheall of na pre

requisite in order to properly assess the value of

S.C. Gielen et al. / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2013) xxxxxx 3

G Model


Pl(2reover, quite a number of studies and evaluations other countries have appeared. Nurse prescribing

been in place by now for a substantial number ofrs in some countries, such as Ireland and the UK,reasing the opportunity for more in-depth research

publications. In view of the growing number ofntries that are introducing nurse prescribing and thet that several studies into nurse prescribing have beenducted recently, there is a need for an updatediew to reassess the available information on thects of nurse prescribing.While several reviews have been conducted into theal and/or educational conditions under which nursescribing has been implemented in different countriesnning, 2004; Kroezen et al., 2011; Ryan et al., 1999), ander non-systematic reviews have addressed the advan-es of nurse prescribing in terms of access and delivery ofe and nurses knowledge and skills (An Bord, 2005;edon et al., 2009; Harris et al., 2004), few reviews havemined the effects of nurse prescribing on medication

patient outcomes. These are important outcomeasures though, rstly because nurse prescribing isn introduced to improve the quality of care, of whichdication and patient outcomes are important measures.he second place they are important because questionse been raised about the adequacy of nurses educa-al programmes and whether nurses have the compe-ce to prescribe medicines (Avery and Pringle, 2005;ning, 2004; Crown and Miller, 2005; Horton, 2002;son, 1994; Siriwardena, 2006; Wilhelmsson anddevi, 2003).As said, in 2008 we conducted a systematic review of

effects of nurse prescribing on medication andient outcomes using studies with a comparativeign. Three other reviews also studied the effects ofse prescribing, but these lacked a comparative designanbhro et al., 2011; Latter and Courtenay, 2004;onnell et al., 2009; Van Ruth et al., 2008). Latter andrtenay (2004) found that nurse prescribing haserally been evaluated positively (Latter and Courte-, 2004). However, their review lacked a systematicroach as well as a comparative design. OConnellal. (2009) reported advantages of nurse prescribingboth patients and nurse prescribers, but concludedt further research, preferably randomised controlledls (RCTs), would be useful to determine theets of nurse prescribing versus doctor prescribingConnell et al., 2009). Bhanbhro et al. (2011) conductedystematic literature review on the contributionprescribing in primary care by nurses, indicatingt nurse prescribing effectively improves patientsdition and provides a better level of care. However,ny of the studies included in this review had designaknesses and limitations, and only two presentedparative data about general practitioners. Hence,se reviews into the effects of nurse prescribinglacked a comparative design to compare the effectsurse prescribing to physician prescribing. However,comparison with the traditional approach ofscribing by medical professionals is a necessary

nurse prescribing.

1.2. Aim and research questions

The aim of this updated review was to identify, appraiseand synthesise the evidence presented in the literature onthe effectiveness of nurse prescribing compared tophysician prescribing. We looked for evidence about theeffects of nurse prescribing on the quantity and types ofmedication and on patient outcomes. The followingresearch questions were addressed:

1. What are the effects of nurse prescribing on the quantityand types of medication being prescribed?

2. What are the effects of nurse prescribing on patientoutcomes?

2. Methods

A more stringent update of the systematic literaturereview by Van Ruth et al. (Van Ruth et al., 2008) wasconducted, working in accordance with the steps in thePreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews andMeta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement (Moher et al., 2009)and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews(Higgins and Green, 2011). This update differs from theprevious review in that it does not include qualitativestudy designs. Furthermore, in contrast to the earlierreview, we do not address the effects of nurse prescribingon physician and nurse outcomes and characteristics of thehealth-care system.

2.1. Search strategy

To identify all relevant studies up to January 2012, thefollowing 11 literature databases and four websites weresearched: BioMed Central, CINAHL, Cochrane Database ofSystematic Reviews, Current Controlled Trials, Embase,INVERT (Dutch nursing literature index), NIVEL catalo-gue, PiCarta (Dutch library system), PubMed, ScienceCitation Index and the Virginia Henderson InternationalNursing Library, and the website of the UK Departmentof Health (www.doh.gov.uk), the website of the WorldHealth Organisation (www.who.org), a website forhealth professionals (www.escriber.com) and GoogleScholar (www.scholar.google.com). All databases andwebsites were searched from January 2006 up to January2012 without limits as to country or language. Thesearch was highly sensitive. The following searchstrategy was used for PubMed: (Nurse prescribing)OR (Nurs* [tiab] AND Prescri* [tiab]) OR (Nurs* ANDprescriptions, drug [MeSH]), and suitable search strate-gies were developed for the other databases usingadaptations of the PubMed search. All the detailedsearch strategies can be found in the additional le 1,Search strategies. The hits from all the searches wereentered into Reference Manager; duplicates wereeliminated in this program and then the inclusionprocess was carried out.lth WaS, 2011; Pharmaceutisch Weekblad, 2011). preease cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003


G Model

NS-2329; No. of Pages 142.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Our inclusion and exclusion criteria were structuredaccording to the PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison,Outcome) method.

2.2.1. Patients

All patient groups were included. There was norestriction in terms of age.

2.2.2. Intervention

Studies were included that addressed the nurseprescribing of medicines as dened in one of the threegeneral models of nurse prescribing, i.e. independentprescribing, supplementary prescribing or prescribing bypatient group directions. Studies that only concernednurse prescribing based on group protocols for childvaccination or travel vaccination were excluded, as theseseverely limit nurses prescribing rights.

2.2.3. Comparison

Studies needed to have a comparative design in whichnurse prescribing was compared to physician prescribingin order to be included in the review. Studies comparingnurse prescribing to prescribing by other non-medicalprescribers (e.g. pharmacists) were excluded.

2.2.4. Outcome

All studies were included that reported on the effects ofnurse prescribing on the quantity and/or types of medica-tion prescribed and/or on patient outcomes. We did notapply a strict denition of patient outcome measures. Allstudies with outcome measures that said something aboutthe effects of nurse prescribing on patient outcomes wereincluded (e.g. patients clinical parameters, satisfaction withcare or number of patient visits to the prescriber).

2.2.5. Type of study

Only primary research studies with a quantitativedesign were included. Studies with a qualitative design andpublications that were not primary research studies, i.e.letters, abstracts, reviews and editorials, were excluded.

A three-stage inclusion process was applied. Initially, a10% sample of all non-duplicate references found in theliterature search was studied independently by tworeviewers (JD and SG), looking at the title and abstract;references were included in the study if they met the abovecriteria. It was stipulated beforehand that if there wassubstantial agreement between the two reviewers for this10% sample, the remaining 90% of the sample would bedivided between them. In accordance with the prevailingcut-off points in the literature, a Kappa value between 0.60and 0.80 was considered an indication of good/substantialagreement (Landis and Koch, 1977). If the title and abstractprovided insufcient information to determine relevance,full paper copies of the articles were ordered and thesearticles were included in the second selection round.

In the second stage, both reviewers independentlyexamined all full paper copies of the articles selected in therst stage, in order to determine whether they fullled theinclusion criteria. Disagreements were either resolved by

discussion or the nal decision was made by a thirdreviewer.

Finally, full-text copies of all 23 studies included in theprevious review (Van Ruth et al., 2008) were checked byboth reviewers to see whether they fullled the stricterinclusion criteria of this review.

2.3. Quality assessment

The methodological quality of the studies included wasassessed independently by two reviewers (JD and SG)using the quality criteria of the Cochrane Effective Practiceand Organisation of Care (EPOC) Review Group (CochraneEffective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group,2002). Differences were resolved by consensus. The EPOCquality criteria checklist includes seven criteria forrandomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials(CCTs), seven criteria for controlled before-and-afterstudies (CBAs) and seven criteria for interrupted timeseries (ITS). The EPOC criteria used to assess RCTs and CCTsare: concealment of allocation, follow-up of professionals,follow-up of patients or episodes of care, blind assessmentof primary outcome(s), baseline measurement, reliableprimary outcome measure(s) and protection againstcontamination.

We assigned an overall quality rating (high, moderateor low risk of bias) to each study. A study was judged ashaving a low risk of bias if it met all seven criteria, amoderate risk of bias if it met four, ve or six criteria, and ahigh risk of bias if it met three criteria or fewer (CochraneEffective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group,2002). The EPOC criteria were not developed to assess themethodological quality of study designs other than RCTs,CCTs, CBAs and ITS. Other designs, such as pre-experi-mental post-test only designs, were judged as having ahigh risk of bias, as these generally have low evidencestrength when studying the effects of interventions.

2.4. Data analysis and synthesis

The rst two authors (JD and SG) extracted data fromthe publications included and entered the data onto digitalstructured data-extraction forms; the last author (MK)checked the extracted data. Disagreements were resolvedby discussion between the review authors. Data wereextracted about the country, model of nurse prescribing,prescribers, patients, number of medicines prescribed,types of medicines prescribed and various patient out-comes. All data extracted from the studies were based onthe results sections and not on the study conclusions.Outcomes were classied according to the researchquestions and grouped together into effects on themedication prescribed and effects on patient outcomes.

2.4.1. Pooling

The option of pooling published effect sizes wasconsidered if studies reported similar outcomes, presentedraw data and reported outcomes that were either allcontinuous or all dichotomous. Standardised mean differ-ences and a random effects model were used forcontinuous outcomes, while relative risks and a randomPlease cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

effeCon200clinsettincarestatstatlessandOxm

2.4.

anamostatpos

2.4.

theincper

3. R

3.1.

diffrefeand10%indtheagrof ttexfor we

theeligcheelig35 for dia

3.2.

con200Spiand200usiwa

ee studies had a low risk of bias (Houweling et al., 2009;


G Model


Pl(2dence intervals were set at 95% (Higgins and Green,5). The decision to pool studies was based on theirical homogeneity, dened as similarity in the careing and in the type of illness affecting the patientsluded in the study. Furthermore, the results of pooling

only reported if the pooled studies show acceptableistical homogeneity. Studies were considered to beistically homogenous if the chi-square test value was than the degrees of freedom, the P value was above 0.1 the inconsistency test I2 was less than 50% (Clarke andan, 2003; Higgins and Green, 2005).

2. Subgroup analysis

If data permitted, we planned to conduct subgrouplyses for different countries, nurse prescribers anddels of nurse prescribing. However, due to substantialistical heterogeneity between studies, this was onlysible for countries.

3. Sensitivity analysis

The intention was to conduct a sensitivity analysis on basis of study quality. However, as almost all studiesluded had a high risk of bias, no sensitivity analysis wasformed.

esults

Search and inclusion results

After duplicates had been removed, the searches in theerent databases resulted in an initial set of 6588rences of potential interest. Initial sifting based on title

abstract reduced this set to 593 references. As said, a sample of all references was initially studiedependently by two reviewers (JD and SG), looking at title and abstract. These reviewers had good/moderateeement (Cohens Kappa = 0.76), and the remaining 90%he sample was therefore divided between them. Full-t copies were ordered of the resulting set of 593 studiesthe second stage of the inclusion process; 578 copiesre actually obtained.Two reviewers (JD and SG) independently performed

second selection phase and 14 studies were deemedible for inclusion. Additionally, the two reviewerscked all studies included in the previous review foribility in this review and included 21 of them. Finally,studies were selected for the next stage of the review,data-extraction and analysis. Fig. 1 shows the owgram of the inclusion process.

Methodological quality of the nal 35 studies

Only 10 of the 35 studies included were randomisedtrolled trials (Einhorn and Trias, 1978; Houweling et al.,5a,b,c, 2009; Kuethe et al., 2011; Shum et al., 2000;tzer et al., 1974; Tobe et al., 2006; Venning et al., 2000),

one was a Controlled Clinical Trial (Kinnersley et al.,0). The methodological quality of these 11 studiesng a randomised or non-randomised controlled designs assessed using the EPOC criteria for RCTs and CCTs.

Kuethe et al., 2011; Tobe et al., 2006), two studies had amoderate risk of bias (Houweling et al., 2005a,c) and theremaining RCTs and the CCT had a high risk of bias(Einhorn and Trias, 1978; Houweling et al., 2005b;Kinnersley et al., 2000; Shum et al., 2000; Spitzer et al.,1974; Venning et al., 2000). The remaining 24 studieseither had a pre-test post-test design without a compar-ison group or a pre-experimental post-test only design. Asthese designs generally have low evidence strength whenstudying the effects of interventions, they were all rated ashaving a high risk of bias.

3.3. Characteristics of the nal 35 studies

3.3.1. Date and geographical focus of studies

The publication years of the selected studies variedfrom 1974 to 2011. Thirteen of the 35 studies wereconducted in the USA, twelve in the UK, ve in theNetherlands, two in Canada, two in Norway and one inColombia.

3.3.2. Nurse prescribing models studied

Twenty-two of the 35 studies involved independentnurse prescribing, two studies involved supplementarynurse prescribing, ve studies described a mix ofindependent and supplementary prescribing, and sixstudies looked at prescribing based on group directions.

3.3.3. Care setting

Twenty-three studies were conducted in primary care(Batey and Holland, 1985; Butler et al., 2001; Cipher et al.,2006; Cox and Jones, 2000; Davis and Drennan, 2007;Einhorn and Trias, 1978; Ferguson et al., 1998; Fletcheret al., 2011; Hansen and Skjeldestad, 2007; Hooker andCipher, 2005; Houweling et al., 2005c; Kinnersley et al.,2000; Ladd, 2005; Pritchard and Kendrick, 2001; Roumieet al., 2005; Running et al., 2006; Sand et al., 2010; Shumet al., 2000; Spitzer et al., 1974; Tobe et al., 2006; Undelandet al., 2010; Venning et al., 2000; Williams et al., 2009),eleven studies were conducted in secondary care (Hou-weling et al., 2005a,b, 2009; Feldman et al., 2003; Fisherand Vaughan-Cole, 2003; Foreman and Morton, 2011;Gambino et al., 2009; Jacobs, 2005; James, 2004; Joneset al., 2011; Mallett et al., 1997) and one study wasconducted in both primary and secondary care (Kuetheet al., 2011).

3.3.4. Patients of interest in the studies

Some of the studies involved nurse prescribing forseveral or mixed patient populations, while others wererestricted to nurse prescribing for specied patient groupsonly (e.g. patients with diabetes, mental health patients orpatients with acute minor illnesses). Eleven studiesinvolved nurse prescribing for various groups of patients(Batey and Holland, 1985; Ferguson et al., 1998; Hookerand Cipher, 2005; Kinnersley et al., 2000; Kuethe et al.,2011; Roumie et al., 2005; Running et al., 2006; Shumet al., 2000; Spitzer et al., 1974; Venning et al., 2000;Williams et al., 2009). Seven studies focused on nursects model were used for dichotomous outcomes. Threase cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003


G Model

NS-2329; No. of Pages 14prescribing for patients with diabetes (Fletcher et al.,2011; Houweling et al., 2005a,b,c, 2006; James, 2004;Tobe et al., 2006), four studies studied nurse prescribingfor (cardiology) patients with hypertension (Fletcheret al., 2011; Gambino et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2011; Tobeet al., 2006), four studies were carried out in the eld ofmental health care (Feldman et al., 2003; Fisher andVaughan-Cole, 2003; Foreman and Morton, 2011; Jacobs,2005), three studies included patients with sore throats orupper respiratory throat infections (Butler et al., 2001;Cox and Jones, 2000; Ladd, 2005), three studies involvednurses prescribing birth control pills (Einhorn and Trias,1978; Hansen and Skjeldestad, 2007; Sand et al., 2010),one study included children with moderate asthma(Kuethe et al., 2011), one study focused on nurseprescribing for the medical management of constipation

(Davis and Drennan, 2007), one study focused on patientswith acute minor illnesses (Pritchard and Kendrick, 2001),one study included all patient encounters resulting in adiagnosis of (streptococcal) pharyngitis or sore throat(Undeland et al., 2010), and nally there was one study in aradiotherapy and oncology department that involvedpatients with diagnoses that included acute radiationtoxicity causing proctitis from pelvic radiotherapy anderythema of the scalp due to cranial irradiation (Mallettet al., 1997).

3.4. Effects on medication prescribed

All results discussed in the following sections werestatistically signicant at P < 0.05 unless otherwise indi-cated.

Database searches, number of hitsBIOMED CINAHL CDS R CC T EMBA SE INVE RT NIVELCAT

85 179 1 58 2 99 329 8 39 11 PICAR TA PUBMED SCHOL AR SCI VHIN L WEBSITES

410 169 9 30 6 180 0 54 9 27

references

Aer eliminang duplicate s

TITLE & AB STRA CT 6588 references

- 5995 : one or more inclusi on criteri a not met

references

593 refere nce s, 578 obtain ed, 15 no t obtain ed

FULL TEXT 456 studies

- 562 studies excluded beca use: - no empirical research (N=218) - reviews (N=14) - not abo ut nu rse pr escribin g (N=40 ) - no compa rave desig n (N=258 ) - not about eects of nurse prescrib ing

(N=25) - not about quanty or paent outcomes

(N=7)

studies

PREVIOUS REVIE W + 21 studies included th at met inclusio n cr iteria

FINAL SET 3 5 studies

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the inclusion process.Please cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

3.4.

premomeprecom

amresSantheintrthesamprebirtpremedepbei

nuramtionerin(20enchypandprethe(20regquawhdousignVau

Tab

Tota

St

Ho

Fle

Fis

Ho

Fe

Sa

Ci

Ru

Ja

a

b

c

d

e


G Model


Pl(21. Total amount of medication prescribed

Studies comparing the total amount of medicationscribed by nurses and doctors show mixed results. Asst studies found divergent results for different types ofdicines, it is difcult to determine whether nursesscribe less, more or the same amount of medicationpared to doctors (see Table 1).Only three of the nine studies reporting on the totalount of medication prescribed found unambiguousults (Ferguson et al., 1998; Houweling et al., 2009;d et al., 2010). Ferguson et al. (1998) concluded that

increase in the volume of prescribing following theoduction of nurse prescribing in the UK was similar to

national increase in the volume of prescribing for thee period. Sand et al. (2010) found that GPs and nursesscribed equal numbers of initial prescriptions of theh control pill. Houweling et al. (2009) found that nursesscribed less cholesterol-lowering medication thandical specialists. Other studies found mixed resultsending on therapy type and/or the type of medicationng prescribed.While Houweling et al. (2005a) found that specialistses and medical specialists prescribed the sameount of glucose and blood pressure lowering medica-, specialised nurses prescribed less cholesterol-low-g medication (Houweling et al., 2005b). Fletcher et al.11) concluded that there were no signicant differ-es between nurses and physicians in the prescription ofoglycaemic medication for patients with hypertension/or diabetes, but patients were less likely to bescribed cardiovascular agents if they had a nurse asir primary care provider. Fisher and Vaughan-Cole03) found that psychiatrists and advanced practiceistered nurses (APRNs) prescribed similar overallntities of medication except for benzodiazepines,ere prescriptions by psychiatrists were more thanble the volume prescribed by APRNs. However, theicance of this nding remains unclear (Fisher andghan-Cole, 2003).

Running et al. (2006) found conicting results. On theone hand, nurses prescribed more over-the-counter (OTC)decongestants for patients with bronchitis than physiciansdid, but on the other hand, they prescribed fewerbronchodilators (Running et al., 2006). In 2005, Jacobsalso found conicting results, without reporting signi-cance levels though (Jacobs, 2005). This study found thatnurses prescribed fewer mood stabilizers, fewer secondaryanti-depressants and less new-age antipsychotic medica-tion than psychiatrists. However, where split therapy wasconcerned, i.e. where patients see a clinician for psy-chotherapy and another healthcare professional formedication management, the prescription of benzodiaze-pine anti-anxiety agents was slightly higher for patientswho received their prescriptions from psychiatric nurses(20%) than for patients who received their prescriptionsfrom psychiatrists (15%). For other types of therapies,prescriptions of mood stabilisers and secondary anti-depressants by psychiatric nurses were similar to those bypsychiatrists (Jacobs, 2005). Finally, Cipher et al. (2006)found conicting results in their study as well, but thesestemmed from a different source, namely geographicalarea. In metropolitan areas, there was no difference in theaverage volume of medication prescribed between nursesand physicians. In non-metropolitan areas however, theaverage number of prescriptions was greater for nurses(Cipher et al., 2006).

3.4.2. Number of patients prescribed medication

Eleven out of fteen studies on the number of patientsprescribed medication report that the number of patientsfor whom a nurse prescribes medication is similar to thenumber of patients for whom a physician prescribesmedication. Two studies show nurses prescribing medica-tion for a higher percentage of patients than physicians doand one study found nurses prescribing for a lower numberof patients (see Table 2).

Most studies found no differences between nurses anddoctors regarding the number of patients who were

le 1

l amount of medication prescribed by nurses compared with physicians.

udy Country Patient group Total amount of medication prescribed by

nurses as compared to physicians

Less Same More

uweling et al. (2009) The Netherlands Diabetes Xa

tcher et al. (2011) USA Hypertension/diabetes Xb X

her & Vaughan-Cole (2003) USA Schizophrenia or depression Unclear X

uweling et al. (2005a) The Netherlands Diabetes Xa X

rguson et al. (1998) UK Various X

nd et al. (2010) Norway Patients who received oral

contraceptives

X

pher et al. (2006) USA Various X Xc

nning et al. (2006) USA Various Xd X Xe

cobs (2005) USA Depression, dysthymia or

bipolar II disorders

Unclear Unclear Unclear

For cholesterol-lowering agents.

For cardiovascular agents.

In non-metropolitan areas.

For bronchodilators.

For decongestants for bronchitis.ease cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

Table 2


G Model

NS-2329; No. of Pages 14prescribed medication, including prescriptions for antibio-tics, anti-depressants, inhaled corticosteroids and medica-tion for hypertension (Cipher et al., 2006; Cox and Jones,2000; Feldman et al., 2003; Jones et al., 2011; Kinnersleyet al., 2000; Kuethe et al., 2011; Ladd, 2005; Pritchard andKendrick, 2001; Shum et al., 2000; Venning et al., 2000).

Two studies conducted in primary care found thatnurses prescribed medication for fewer patients thanphysicians did (Batey and Holland, 1985; Butler et al.,2001). However, Batey and Holland (1985) do not reportwhether this difference is statistically signicant. Hookerand Cipher (2005) found no difference in the overallnumber of patients receiving prescriptions, but when ruralareas alone were taken into consideration, they found thatnurse practitioners prescribed medication for signicantlymore patients than physicians did. Three studies

conducted in primary care also found that nursesprescribed medication for more patients, but Hansenand Skjeldestad (2007) do not report signicance levels(Hansen and Skjeldestad, 2007; Hooker and Cipher, 2005;Roumie et al., 2005).

The pooling of studies that reported outcomes on thenumber of patients being prescribed medication wasconsidered for six studies that all reported raw dichot-omous data and were conducted in a primary care settingwith various patients. However, it was decided thatpooling these studies was not justied due to substantialstatistical heterogeneity. But a subgroup analysis based onpooling the country data was possible: four studies fromthe UK taken together showed no difference in the numberof patients being prescribed medication by nurses ascompared with GPs (Fig. 2) (Kinnersley et al., 2000;

Number of patients prescribed medication by nurses versus physicians.

Study Country Patient group Number of patients prescribed by nurse as

compared to physician/psychiatrist

Fewer Same More

Butler et al. (2001) UK URTI X

Cipher et al. (2006) USA Various X

Cox and Jones (2000) UK Sore throats X

Feldman et al. (2003) USA Mental health patients X

Jones et al. (2011) UK Hypertension/renal problems X

Kinnersley et al. (2000) UK Various X

Kuethe et al. (2011) The Netherlands Asthma (children) X

Ladd (2005) USA URTI X

Pritchard & Kendrick (2001) UK Acute minor illnesses X

Shum et al. (2000) UK Various X

Venning et al. (2000) UK Various X

Hooker and Cipher (2005) USA Various X Xa

Roumie et al. (2005) USA Various X

Batey and Holland (1985) USA Various Unclear Unclear Unclear

Hansen and Skjeldestad (2007) Norway Women using oral

contraceptives (OCs)

Unclear Unclear Unclear

a Only in rural areas.

Fig. 2. Number of patients being prescribed medication in primary care in the UK.Please cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

Pritet a

3.4.

prethewaet afounumstupatphywa

3.4.

docet abetprecorfor asth(20peupatnonantintestatheaprimpsysanVau(19pat

Tab

Clin

St

To

Co

Ei

Fle

Ho

Ki

Ku

Sh

Sp

Ve

Ho

Ho

Ja

a

b

c

d


G Model


Pl(2chard and Kendrick, 2001; Shum et al., 2000; Venningl., 2000).

3. Number of medicines prescribed per patient visit

Four studies reported on the number of medicinesscribed per patient visit. Two studies concluded that

mean number of medicines prescribed per patient visits similar for physicians and nurse practitioners (Cipherl., 2006; Hooker and Cipher, 2005). Jones et al. (2011)nd no difference between nurses and doctors in theber of medicines prescribed per patient, while another

dy found that the average number of medicines used byients per medicine visit was 1.33 for nurses and 1.87 forsicians, but the statistical signicance of this ndings not reported (Batey and Holland, 1985).

4. Type of medication and dose prescribed

There were few overall differences between nurses andtors in the type and dose of medication prescribed. Jonesl. (2011) reported no statistically signicant differencesween nurse and doctor prescribers in the types of itemsscribed per patient. Kuethe et al. (2011) found that therected daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids prescribedchildren with asthma was the same for specialisedma nurses as for GPs and paediatricians. Running et al.06) reported that the most common pharmacothera-tic treatments prescribed by nurses and physicians forients with musculoskeletal injuries and back pain were-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs and muscle relax-s. Nurses appeared to use more nonpharmacologicalrventions in addition, but these differences were notistically signicant (Running et al., 2006). In mentallth care, both psychiatric nurses and psychiatristsarily prescribed SSRI anti-depressant medicines, but

chiatrists prescribed more other types of anti-depres-t medication as well (Feldman et al., 2003; Fisher andghan-Cole, 2003). Finally, the study by Einhorn and Trias78) on contraceptives notes that while the number ofients receiving intrauterine devices (IUDs) on a second

visit was similar for nurses and physicians, nurses wereinitially more likely to keep clients on conventional methodssuch as contraceptive foam and condoms.

Sand et al. (2010) found a difference in prescribingpractices between nurses and GPs, and noted that GPswere more likely than nurses to prescribe a birth controlpill of the third generation. Davis and Drennan (2007)likewise concluded that prescribing patterns differedbetween nurses and GPs, as nearly three-quarters of theprescriptions by nurses for constipation favoured itemsfrom the osmotic class of laxatives, compared to only 36%of GP prescriptions.

3.5. Effects on patient outcomes

3.5.1. Clinical outcomes

Most of the 13 studies reporting on clinical outcomesfound no differences between nurse prescribing andphysician prescribing in this regard (see Table 3). Therewere no signicant differences found between patientsreceiving prescriptions from a nurse and those receivingprescriptions from a physician in HbA1c, blood pressureand creatinine level (Fletcher et al., 2011); in airwayresponsiveness, asthma control and number of severeexacerbations (Kuethe et al., 2011); in systolic bloodpressure, urine albumin status and incidence of adverseevents (Tobe et al., 2006); in the number of sore throatsthat had settled (Cox and Jones, 2000); in the resolution ofsymptoms and concerns (Kinnersley et al., 2000); inpatients rating of their health status or in terms of clinicalimprovement after 2 weeks (Shum et al., 2000); in healthstatus outcome (Venning et al., 2000); in the physicalstatus level, emotional and social function, and crude deathrates (Spitzer et al., 1974); and in pregnancy rates, methodcontinuation and side effects for contraceptive services(Einhorn and Trias, 1978). Moreover, Houweling et al.conducted several studies in the eld of diabetes care andfound no signicant differences in outcomes for HbA1c,blood pressure, total cholesterol, cholesterol/HDL ratio,

le 3

ical outcomes of patients receiving prescriptions from nurses versus physicians.

udy Country Type of patient Clinical outcomes

Better outcomes

for nurses

No difference Better outcomes

for physicians

be et al. (2006) Canada Diabetes and hypertension Xa X

x and Jones (2000) UK Sore throats Xb Xc

nhorn and Trias (1978) Colombia Women seeking contraceptives X

tcher et al. (2011) USA Diabetes and/or hypertension X

uweling et al. (2005c) Netherlands Diabetes X

nnersley et al. (2000) UK Various X

ethe et al. (2011) The Netherlands Asthma (children) X

um et al. (2000) UK Various X

itzer et al. (1974) Canada Various X

nning et al. (2000) UK Various X

uweling et al. (2005b) The Netherlands Diabetes X Xd

uweling et al. (2009) Netherlands Diabetes X Xd

mes (2004) UK Diabetes Unclear Unclear Unclear

For diastolic blood pressure.

For perception of being back to normal health and number of days for sore throat to settle.

For number of patients whose sore throats had settled.

For cholesterol/HDL ratio.ease cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003


G Model

NS-2329; No. of Pages 14lipid prole, quitting smoking rates, percentage of patientswithin the target values for body mass index (BMI) andquality of life and diabetes-related symptoms (Houwelinget al., 2005a,c, 2009).

Some differences, however, were also reported. Cox andJones (2000) found that patients perception of being backto normal health and the median number of days for sorethroats to settle were more favourable for nurses than GPs.In another study, patients with hypertension and diabetesreceiving prescriptions from nurses had a signicantlylarger drop in diastolic blood pressure than patientsreceiving prescriptions from physicians (Tobe et al.,2006). Houweling et al. found divergent results forcholesterol/HDL ratios in diabetes patients: in one study,the cholesterol/HDL ratio improved more for patientsbeing treated by a medical specialist (Houweling et al.,2005a), while in another study it improved more forpatients being treated by a nurse specialised in diabetes(Houweling et al., 2009).

3.5.2. Satisfaction with care

Patients were generally more satised or equallysatised with the care provided by a nurse compared totraditional care provided by a physician. Only one studyfound that patients treated by a nurse were less satisedwith the care provided than patients cared for by aphysician (see Table 4).

Seven studies found that patients were more satisedwith care received from nurses than with care receivedfrom GPs or physicians (Gambino et al., 2009; Houwelinget al., 2005a,c, 2009; Jones et al., 2011; Shum et al., 2000;Venning et al., 2000). Moreover, Kinnersley et al. (2000)found that children were more satised with care receivedfrom nurses, but adult patients did not have a preference.Four other studies found that patients satisfaction withthe care received was similar for nurses and doctors (Coxand Jones, 2000; Foreman and Morton, 2011; Pritchard andKendrick, 2001; Spitzer et al., 1974). Williams et al. (2009),however, found that patients served by a nurse practi-tioner reported lower levels of satisfaction than patientsserved by a psychiatrist. However, the roles of the two

categories of prescribers in this study were not compar-able, so no substantive conclusions can be drawn fromthese ndings (Williams et al., 2009).

3.5.3. Quality of care

Two studies concluded that the quality of care providedby nurses was similar to or better than the quality of careprovided by GPs. Spitzer et al. (1974) found no signicantdifferences between nurses and GPs in the quality of care,measured on the basis of 10 indicators of care managementthat were developed by a group of physicians, whileHouweling et al. (2005c) showed that all process indicatorsfor the quality of care were higher for nurses than forphysicians, except for two indicators for which there wasno difference.

3.5.4. Consultation time

Six of the eight studies reporting on consultation timesfound that nurses generally spent more time with patientsthan doctors, while the remaining two studies found nodifference. In the USA, two studies reported that psychia-tric nurses in secondary mental health care spent moretime with patients than psychiatrists during medicationvisits (Fisher and Vaughan-Cole, 2003; Jacobs, 2005),although Jacobs (2005) does not report the statisticalsignicance of this nding. Three studies concluded thatnurses had longer consultation times than GPs in generalpractice in the UK (Kinnersley et al., 2000; Shum et al.,2000; Venning et al., 2000), and a study in primary diabeteshealth care in the Netherlands also found that the totalduration of the consultations per patient was higher for thepractice nurse than for the physicians (Houweling et al.,2005c). However, in the case of secondary diabetes healthcare, no differences were found in the total duration of allconsultations (Houweling et al., 2005b, 2009).

3.5.5. Provision of information

Five studies reported that nurses gave more or the sameamount of information to patients as doctors. Nurses werefound to give more advice about home remedies for sorethroats than GPs (Cox and Jones, 2000), and more advice on

Table 4

Patients satisfaction with care provided by nurses versus physicians.

Study Country Patient group Patient satisfaction with care provided

by nurses versus physicians

Less Same Greater

Williams et al. (2009) USA Mental illness X

Kinnersley et al. (2000) UK Various X Xa

Cox and Jones (2000) UK Sore throats X

Foreman and Morton (2011) UK ADHD X

Pritchard and Kendrick (2001) UK Various X

Spitzer et al. (1974) Canada Various X

Gambino et al. (2009) USA Cardiology and rehabilitation X

Houweling et al. (2005b) Netherlands Diabetes X

Houweling et al. (2005c) Netherlands Diabetes X

Houweling et al. (2009) Netherlands Diabetes X

Jones et al. (2011) UK Hypertension and/or renal X

Shum et al. (2000) UK Various X

Venning et al. (2000) UK Various X

a Children are more satised.Please cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

selfet amopatartewhKinprainfo(20am

3.5.

tionthathaillnKendiffnum

3.5.

betsecKenpatthaliketreafor

3.5.

retuet amocartha(Einrepregor mevarpsyfor pat

betfor et aPritstupootionshowhfollfoll


G Model


Pl(2-medication and general self-management (Shuml., 2000). Sand et al. (2010) reported that signicantlyre nurses than physicians said that they informedients about contraceptive security and the risk ofrial thromboembolic disease, and offered follow-upen prescribing OCs for rst time. In the study bynersley et al. (2000), patients managed by nursectitioners (NPs) reported receiving signicantly morermation about their illnesses. Finally, Running et al.06) concluded that NPs and physicians gave similarounts of smoking cessation information to patients.

6. Investigations

One study in primary care found that nurse practi-ers were more likely to order tests and investigationsn GPs (Venning et al., 2000), while another study foundt GPs initiated more investigations for acute minoresses compared to practice nurses (Pritchard anddrick, 2001). Kinnersley et al. (2000) found noerence between nurse practitioners and GPs in theber of investigations ordered.

7. Referrals

Three studies in primary care reported no differencesween nurses and GPs in the number of referrals toondary care (Kinnersley et al., 2000; Pritchard anddrick, 2001; Venning et al., 2000). Two studies ofients with diabetes in secondary care, however, foundt patients cared for by specialised nurses were morely to be referred back to their GP to continue theirtment in the GP practice compared to patients caredby medical specialists (Houweling et al., 2005a, 2009).

8. Follow-up consultations

In general, patients cared for by nurses make morern visits than patients cared for by doctors. Venningl. (2000) found that patients treated by nurses werere likely to make return visits to the clinic than patientsed for by GPs. A study of contraceptive services showedt nurses have signicantly more scheduled revisitshorn and Trias, 1978), while Kuethe et al. (2011)orted that children cared for by nurses had moreular follow-up visits up than children cared for by GPspaediatricians. Fletcher et al. (2011) showed that thean number of primary and specialty care visits did noty by care provider type, but the average number ofchiatric care outpatient visits was signicantly lowernurse practitioners patients compared with physiciansients.Four studies in primary care found no differenceween patients cared for by nurses and patients caredby GPs in the number of follow-up consultations (Butlerl., 2001; Cox and Jones, 2000; Kinnersley et al., 2000;chard and Kendrick, 2001). Only two of the eightdies reporting on follow-up consultations could beled with regard to the number of follow-up consulta-s (Butler et al., 2001; Cox and Jones, 2000). The studiesw no signicant effect when taken separately, buten pooled, they show that nurses have slightly moreow-up consultations than GPs. However, the rate ofow-up consultations is low (between 6% and 10%) for

both GPs and nurses, and the effect size found is small(1.68, condence level 1.042.73).

3.5.9. Medication adherence

Only one study reported on medication adherence; itfound no signicant difference between treatment by apsychiatrist and treatment by an advanced practiceregistered nurse (Jacobs, 2005).

3.5.10. Patient enablement

Two studies report that patient enablement, i.e. theextent to which patients understand their illness and areable to cope with it, is similar for nurse practitioners andGPs (Pritchard and Kendrick, 2001; Venning et al., 2000).

4. Discussion

This review has identied and mapped quantitativestudies exploring the effects of nurse prescribing onmedication and patient outcomes. Our results supportthe ndings of the previous review (Van Ruth et al., 2008).Our ndings suggest that nurses prescribe for a wide rangeof patients and in comparable ways to physicians. Overall,nurses appear to prescribe for just as many patients asphysicians do, nurses prescribe comparable numbers ofmedicines per patient visit and there appear to be fewdifferences between nurses and physicians in the type anddose of medication prescribed and in clinical outcomes.Studies comparing the total number of medicines pre-scribed by nurses and doctors show mixed results though,depending on therapy type and the type of medicationbeing prescribed. Patients were generally more or equallysatised with the care provided by nurses compared to thetraditional care provided by physicians. Moreover, nursesgenerally appear to spend more time with patients thanphysicians do and to give more or the same amount ofinformation to patients. Results concerning differences inthe number of investigations by nurses and physicians aremixed. While there appear to be no differences betweennurses and physicians in referrals to secondary care,patients cared for by nurses seem to make more returnvisits than patients cared for by physicians. Based on theseresults, it appears that nurse prescribing is of similarquality to physician prescribing, and worries aboutwhether nurses have the competence to prescribe appearto be unfounded.

4.1. Strengths and weaknesses of the review

The main strength of this review is that it reviews theeffects of nurse prescribing on medication and patientoutcomes when compared to physician prescribing. Thestrength of the studies included stems from their real-world setting, with clinically typical, routinely managedpatients, and the direct examination of clinically relevantoutcomes. Moreover, the datasets of most studies weresufciently large to explore the phenomenon of interest inthis systematic review.

While our ndings suggest that nurses prescribe incomparable ways to physicians, the ndings should beunderstood in the context of some limitations. Due toease cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

5. Conclusion


G Model

NS-2329; No. of Pages 14clusions about the effects of nurse prescribing on medica-tion and patient outcomes remain tentative. We included35 studies, 24 of which were of low methodological qualityowing to their study design, i.e. they were not RCTs or CCTs.Of the eleven RCTs and CCTs included in the review, threehad a low risk of bias, two had a moderate risk of bias andsix had a high risk of bias. Therefore, only tentativeconclusions can be drawn about the effects of nurseprescribing on medication and patient outcomes. Yet itshould be noted that the overall general ndings asoutlined above, indicating that nurses prescribe in similarways to doctors, are in line with the ndings of the vestudies that had a moderate to high methodologicalquality.

Furthermore, our results should be interpreted withcaution since a number of other factors may haveinuenced our results. After all, nurse prescribing isembedded in other tasks such as consultation, diagnosisand treatment. It is difcult to distinguish the effects ofnurse prescribing from these other tasks and determine,for example, whether patients are more satised withnurse prescribing because of their prescribing practices orbecause nurses have more time for patients. One possiblesolution to this problem would be to further elucidate thefactors that lead to greater patient satisfaction (Horrockset al., 2002).

Finally, it should be noted that comparisons betweennurses and physicians in the quantity and type ofmedication prescribed cannot be directly linked to clinicaloutcomes or effects on patients. Where nurses andphysicians prescribe in similar ways, such as the prescrip-tion of antibiotics for patients with upper respiratory tractinfections, this is usually considered a good thing.However, the prescription of antibiotics is not appropriatefor viral upper respiratory tract infections and hence bothnurses and physicians, although prescribing in similarways, are exhibiting suboptimal prescription behaviour inthat case (Ladd, 2005). In general, however, nurses appearto prescribe clinically appropriate medication (Black,2012; Latter et al., 2005; Mahoney, 1994). Moreover,while doctors and nurses within one country will usuallyprescribe from the same national protocols or guidelines, itis possible that where professionally tailored protocols orguidelines have been developed, comparisons betweendoctors and nurses in quantity of medicines may behampered by differences in directions in the protocols andguidelines that are used.

4.2. Directions for future research

Future research should preferably employ a rando-mised controlled design in order to determine the effectsof nurse prescribing when compared to physicianprescribing on the quantity and types of medicationprescribed and on patient outcomes. Moreover, furtherresearch is needed in order to address issues that havereceived less attention in the literature so far, includingthe effects of nurse prescribing on the quality of care,provision of information, investigations and referrals, andmedication adherence.

Nurses prescribe in comparable ways to physicians andthe effects of nurse prescribing on medication and patientoutcomes are similar or better when compared to physicianprescribing. However, due to methodological weaknesses inthis body of research, conclusions must remain tentative.More randomised controlled designs in the eld of nurseprescribing are required to enable denitive conclusionsabout the effects of nurse prescribing.

Author contributions

JD, SG and MK contributed equally to the study andshare joint rst authorship. All the authors contributedsubstantially to the study and approved the nal version.PM, JD and SG developed the search strategy. JD and SGcarried out the literature search. JD and SG extracted allstudy data and MK checked all the data extracted. JD, SGand MK wrote the rst draft of the paper and PM and AFcontributed to subsequent drafts.

Conict of interest

No conicts of interest have been reported.

Funding

This study was funded by a grant to NIVEL from theDutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.

Ethical approval

Not required.

Acknowledgements

This is an update of Van Ruth L, Francke AL, Mistiaen P:Effects of nurse prescribing of medication: a systematicreview. Internet Journal of Healthcare Administration2008, 5: http://dx.doi.org/10.5580/11e, URL: http://ispub.-com/IJHCA/5/2/3311. The review authors acknowledgeand thank Lotti van Ruth who was lead author of theoriginal review. She gave permission to update the reviewand use the original data in the update. She has read andapproved the nal version of this update.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can befound, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003.

References

Aarts, J., Koppel, R., 2009. Implementation of computerized physicianorder entry in seven countries. Health Aff. 28, 404414.

An Bord Altranais and the National Council for the Professional Devel-opment of Nursing and Midwifery, 2005. Review of Nurses andMidwives in the Prescribing and Administration of Medicinal Pro-ducts; Final Report. Dublin.methodological limitations in the studies included, con-Please cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

Ave

Ball

Ban

Bate

Bha

Blac

Brad

Buc

Butl

Ciph

Clar

Coch

Cox

Cree

Crow

Dav

Dep

Dep

Dep

Dep

Dep

Dren

Dut

Einh

Emm

Feld


G Model


Pl(2ry, A., Pringle, M., 2005. Extended prescribing by UK nurses andpharmacists. Br. Med. J. 331, 11541155., J., 2009. Implementing Nurse Prescribing: An Updated Review ofCurrent Practice Internationally. International Council of Nurses,Geneve.ning, M., 2004. Nurse prescribing, nurse education and relatedresearch in the United Kingdom: a review of the literature. NurseEduc. Today 24, 420427.y, M.V., Holland, J.M., 1985. Prescribing practices among nurse prac-titioners in adult and family health. Am. J. Public Health 75 (3) 258262.nbhro, S., Drennan, V., Grant, R., Harris, R., 2011. Assessing thecontribution of prescribing in primary care by nurses and profes-sionals allied to medicine: a systematic review of literature. BMCHealth Serv. Res. 11, 330.k, A., 2012. Non-medical prescribing by nurse practitioners in acci-dent & emergency and sexual health: a comparative study. J. Adv.Nurs. 69, 535545.ley, E., Nolan, P., 2007. Impact of nurse prescribing: a qualitativestudy. J. Adv. Nurs. 59, 120128.han, J., Calman, L., 2004. Implementing Nurse Prescribing. An UpdatedReview of Current Practice Internationally. International Councilof Nurses.er, C.C., Rees, M., Kinnersley, P., Rollnick, S., Hood, K., 2001. A casestudy of nurse management of upper respiratory tract infections ingeneral practice. J. Adv. Nurs. 33 (3) 328333.er, D.J., Hooker, R.S., Guerra, P., 2006. Prescribing trends by nursepractitioners and physician assistants in the United States. J. Am.Acad. Nurse Pract. 18, 291296.ke, M., Oxman, A.D., 2003. Cochrane Reviewers Handbook 4.1.6.Oxford.rane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group, 2002.The Data Collection Checklist. Institute of Population Health, Uni-versity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada., C., Jones, M., 2000. An evaluation of the management of patientswith sore throats by practice nurses and GPs. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 50(460) 872876.don, R., OConnell, E., McCarthy, G., Lehane, B., 2009. An evaluationof nurse prescribing. Part 1: a literature review. Br. J. Nurs. 18, 13221327.n, J., Miller, P., 2005. Access to the whole BNF: a long-awaited

triumph or the wrong decision? British National Formulary. NursePrescrib. 3, 228230.is, K., Drennan, V., 2007. Evaluating nurse prescribing behaviourusing constipation as a case study. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 13,243253.artment of Health, 1999. Review of Prescribing, Supply & Adminis-tration of Medicines: Final Report. London.artment of Health, 2002. Extending Independent Nurse Prescribingwithin the NHS in England: A Guide for Implementation. Departmentof Health, London.artment of Health, 2010a. Nurse Prescribing FAQ. http://webarchive.-nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicine-spharmacyandindustry/Prescriptions/TheNon-MedicalPrescribing-Programme/Nurseprescribing/DH_4123003.artment of Health, 2010b. Supplementary Prescribing FAQ. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Health-care/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Prescriptions/TheNon-MedicalPre-scribingProgramme/Supplementaryprescribing/DH_4123034.artment of Health, 2010c. Patient Group Directions. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/Publication-sPolicyAndGuidance/Browsable/DH_4898318.nan, J., Naughton, C., Allen, D., Hyde, A., Felle, P., et al., 2009. NationalIndependent Evaluation of the Nurse and Midwife Prescribing Initia-tive. University College Dublin, Dublin.ch House of Representatives, 2011. Tweede Kamer der Staten-Gen-eraal, vergaderjaar 2010-2011, 32 196, 32 261, nr. 13, Brief van deMinister van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport [The Dutch House ofRepresentatives, year 2010-2011, 32 196, 32 261, no. 13, Letter of theMinister of Health, Welfare and Sport]. Den Haag.orn, R.F., Trias, M., 1978. Differences between physicians and nursesin providing family planning services: ndings from a Bogota clinic.Stud. Family Plann. 9 (2/3) 3538.erton, L., Marriott, J., Bessell, T., Nissen, L., Dean, L., 2005. Pharmacists

and prescribing rights: review of international developments. J.Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 8, 217225.man, S., Bachman, J., Cuffel, B., Friesen, B., McCabe, J., 2003. Advancedpractice psychiatric nurses as a treatment resource: survey andanalysis. Adm. Policy Ment. Health 30 (6) 479492.

Ferguson, B., Luker, K., Smith, K., Austin, L., Hogg, C., 1998. Preliminaryndings from an economic analysis of nurse prescribing. Int. J. Pharm.Pract. 6 (3) 3132.

Fisher, S.E., Vaughan-Cole, B., 2003. Similarities and differences in clientstreated and in medications prescribed by APRNs and psychiatrists in aCMHC. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 17 (3) 101107.

Fletcher, C.E., Copeland, L.A., Lowery, J.C., Reeves, P.J., 2011. Nursepractitioners as primary care providers within the VA. Mil. Med.176, 791797.

Foreman, D.M., Morton, S., 2011. Nurse-delivered and doctor-deliveredcare in an attention decit hyperactivity disorder follow-up clinic: acomparative study using propensity score matching. J. Adv. Nurs. 67,13411348.

Gambino, K.K., Planavsky, L., Gaudette, H., 2009. Transition toward anurse practitioner-managed clinic. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 24, 132139.

Hansen, T., Skjeldestad, F.E., 2007. Adolescents: is there an associationbetween knowledge of oral contraceptives and profession ofprovider? Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 12, 303308.

Hartley, J., 2003. Nurse prescribing the big picture. Nurs. Times 99, 2225.Harris, J., Taylor, J., Mackie, C., 2004. Research Literature Review on

Prescribing. Scottish Executive Social Research.Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., 2005. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic

Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic

Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester UK.Hooker, R.S., Cipher, D.J., 2005. Physician assisant and nurse practitioner

prescribing: 1997-2002. J. Rural Health 21 (4) 355360.Horrocks, S., Anderson, E., Salisbury, C., 2002. Systematic review of

whether nurse practitioners working in primary care can provideequivalent care to doctors. Br. Med. J. 324, 819823.

Horton, R., 2002. Nurse-prescribing in the UK: right but also wrong.Lancet 359 (9321) 18751876.

Houweling, S.T., Kleefstra, N., Groenier, K.H., Meyboom-de Jong, B., Bilo,H.J.G., 2005a. De diabetesverpleegkundige als hoofdbehandelaar bijpatienten met diabetes mellitus type 2 in de tweede lijn: een ger-andomiseerd onderzoek. Taakdelegatie in de eerste- en tweedelijnsdiabeteszorg: resultaten van de DISCOURSE-studies. RijksuniversiteitGroningen, Groningen, pp. 6986.

Houweling, S.T., Kleefstra, N., Groenier, K.H., Meyboom-de Jong, B., Bilo,H.J.G., 2005b. De diabetesverpleegkundige als hoofdbehandelaar bijpatienten met diabetes mellitus type 2 in de tweede lijn: de inspan-ningen en de kosten. Taakdelegatie in de eerste- en tweedelijnsdiabeteszorg: resultaten van de DISCOURSE-studies. RijksuniversiteitGroningen, Groningen, pp. 8796.

Houweling, S.T., Kleefstra, N., Groenier, K.H., Meyboom-de Jong, B., Bilo,H.J.G., 2005c. De praktijkondersteuner als hoofdbehandelaar bijpatienten met diabetes mellitus type 2 in de eerste lijn: een geran-domiseerd onderzoek. Taakdelegatie in de eerste- en tweedelijnsdiabeteszorg: resultaten van de DISCOURSE-studies. RijksuniversiteitGroningen, Groningen, pp. 4968.

Houweling, S.T., Kleefstra, N., VanBallegooie, E., Verhoeven, S., Bilo, H.J.G.,et al., 2006. Taakverschuivingen in de eerstelijns diabeteszorg: eenenquete onder ruim vierhonderd praktijkondersteuners. Huisarts &Wetensch 49 (3) 118122.

Houweling, S.T., Kleefstra, N., Van Hateren, K.J.J., Kooy, A., Groenier, K.H.,et al., 2009. Diabetes specialist nurse as main care provider forpatients with type 2 diabetes. Neth. J. Med. 67, 279284.

Jacobs, J.T., 2005. Treatment of depressive disorders in split versusintegrated therapy and comparisons of prescriptive practices of psy-chiatrists and advanced practice registered nurses. Arch. Psychiatr.Nurs. 19 (6) 256263.

James, J., 2004. Supplementary prescribing by a diabetes specialist nurseon a hospital ward. Nurs. Prescrib. 2 (3) 112116.

Jones, A., 2009. Nurse Prescribing in Mental Health. Wiley-Blackwell,Chichester.

Jones, K., Edwards, M., While, A., 2011. Nurse prescribing roles in acutecare: an evaluative case study. J. Adv. Nurs. 67, 117126.

Kinnersley, P., Anderson, E., Parry, K., Clement, J., Archard, L., et al., 2000.Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus generalpractitioner care for patients requesting same day consultations inprimary care. BMJ 320 (7241) 10431048.

Kroezen, M., van Dijk, L., Groenewegen, P.P., Francke, A.L., 2011. Nurseprescribing of medicines in Western European and Anglo-Saxoncountries: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv.Res. 11 (1) 127, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-127.

Kroezen, M., Francke, A.L., Groenewegen, P.P., Van Dijk, L., 2012. Nurseprescribing of medicines in Western European and Anglo-Saxoncountries: a survey on forces, conditions and jurisdictional control.Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 49, 10021012.ease cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

Kuethe, M., Vaessen, V.A., Mulder, P., Bindels, P., van, A.W., 2011. Pae- Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg, 2002. Taakherschikking in de


G Model

NS-2329; No. of Pages 14diatric asthma outpatient care by asthma nurse, paediatrician orgeneral practitioner: randomised controlled trial with two-year fol-low-up. Prim. Care Respir. J. 20, 8491.

Ladd, E., 2005. The use of antibiotics for viral upper respiratory tractinfections: an analysis of nurse practitioner and physician prescribingpractices in ambulatory care. J. Am. Acad. Nurse Pract. 17 (10) 416424.

Landis, J.R., Koch, C.G., 1977. The measurement of observer agreement forcategorical data. Biometrics 33, 159174.

Latter, S., Courtenay, M., 2004. Effectiveness of nurse prescribing: a reviewof the literature. J. Clin. Nurs. 13 (1) 2632.

Latter, S., Maben, J., Myall, M., Courtenay, M., Young, A., et al., 2005.An evaluation of Extended Formulary Independent Nurse Prescribing;Executive Summary of Final Report. Department of Health.

Mahoney, D.F., 1994. Appropriateness of geriatric prescribing decisionsmade by nurse practitioners and physicians. Image J. Nurs. Sch. 26 (1)4146.

Mallett, J., Guerrero, D., Rhys-Evans, F., Faithfull, S., 1997. Nurse prescrib-ing by protocol nurse-run clinics ensure patients get their pills ontime. Nurs. Times 93 (8) 5053.

Ministry of Health WaS, 2011. Besluit van 21 december 2011. houdendetijdelijke regels inzake de zelfstandige bevoegdheid tot het verrichtenvan voorbehouden handelingen van verpleegkundig specialisten (Tij-delijk besluit zelfstandige bevoegdheid verpleegkundig specialisten)[Decision of 21 December, on temporary rules relating to the auton-omous power to perform restricted actions of nurse specialists(Temporary autonomous decision power nurse specialists)]. Staats-blad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 659.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred ReportingItems for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA State-ment. PLoS Med. 6 (7) e1000097.

National Nursing and Nursing Education Taskforce, 2006. National NursePrescribing Glossary. National Nursing & Nursing Education Task-force, Melbourne.

Nilsson, M., 1994. Opposition to nurse-prescribing in Sweden. Lancet1077.

OConnell, E., Creedon, R., McCarthy, G., Lehane, B., 2009. An evaluationof nurse prescribing. Part 2: a literature review. Br. J. Nurs. 18, 13981402.

Pharmaceutisch Weekblad, 2011. Finland: voorschrijvende verpleegkun-digen [Finland: Prescribing Nurses]. Available from: http://www pwnl/nieuws/nieuwsberichten/nland-voorschrijvende-verpleegkundi-gen (accessed 24 01 2011).

Pritchard, A., Kendrick, D., 2001. Practice nurse and health visitormanagement of acute minor illness in a general practice. J. Adv. Nurs.36 (4) 556562.

gezondheidzorg [Task substitution in healthcare]. Zoetermeer.Roumie, C.L., Halasa, N.B., Edwards, K.M., Zhu, Y., Dittus, R.S., et al., 2005.

Differences in antibiotic prescribing among physicians, residents, andnonphysician clinicians. Am. J. Med. 118 (6) 641648.

Royal College of Nursing, 2004. Patient Group Directions: Guidance andInformation for Nurses. Royal College of Nursing, London.

Running, A., Kipp, C., Mercer, V., 2006. Prescriptive patterns of nursepractitioners and physicians. J. Am. Acad. Nurse Pract. 18, 228233.

Ryan, T., Cash, K., Hannis, D., 1999. Nurse prescribing and in-patientalcohol detoxication. J. Subst. Use 4 (4) 133141.

Sand, A.D., Aanes, S.G., Slordal, L., Spigset, O., 2010. Routines for rstprescription or oral contraceptives. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 130,23442348.

Shum, C., Humphreys, A., Wheeler, D., Cochrane, M.A., Skoda, S., et al.,2000. Nurse management of patients with minor illnesses ingeneral practice: multicentre, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 320(7241) 10381043.

Siriwardena, A.N., 2006. The rise and rise of non-medical prescribing. Q.Prim. Care 14, 13.

Spitzer, W.O., Sackett, D.L., Sibley, J.C., Roberts, R.S., Gent, M., et al., 1974.The burlington randomized trial of the nurse practitioner. N. Engl. J.Med. 290, 251256.

Tobe, S.W., Pylypchuk, G., Wentworth, J., Kiss, A., Szalai, J.P., et al., 2006.Effect of nurse-directed hypertension treatment among First Nationspeople with existing hypertension and diabetes mellitus: the Dia-betes Risk Evaluation and Microalbuminuria (DREAM 3) randomizedcontrolled trial. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 174, 12671271.

Undeland, D.K., Kowalski, T.J., Berth, W.L., Gundrum, J.D., 2010. Appro-priately prescribing antibiotics for patients with pharyngitis: a phy-sician-based approach vs a nurse-only triage and treatmentalgorithm. Mayo Clin. Proc. 85, 10111015.

Van Ruth, L., Francke, A.L., Mistiaen, P., 2008. Effects of nurse prescribingof medication: a systematic review. Int. J. Healthc. Admin. 5 , http://dx.doi.org/10.5580/11e.

Venning, P., Durie, A., Roland, M., Roberts, C., Leese, B., 2000. Randomisedcontrolled trial comparing cost effectiveness of general practitionersand nurse practitioners in primary care. BMJ 320 (7241) 10481053.

Watterson, A., Turner, F., Coull, A., Murray, I., 2009. An Evaluation of theExpansion of Nurse Prescribing in Scotland. Scottish GovernmentSocial Research, Edinburgh.

Williams, K., Kukla, M., Bond, G.R., McKasson, M., Salyers, M.P., 2009. Can anurse practitioner serve in the prescriber role on an assertive com-munity treatment team? Am. J. Psychiatr. Rehabil. 12, 205224.

Wilhelmsson, S., Foldevi, M., 2003. Exploring views on Swedish districtnurses prescribing a focus group study in primary health care. J.Clin. Nurs. 12, 643650.Please cite this article in press as: Gielen, S.C., et al., The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003

Documents

The effects of nurse prescribing: A systematic review