Skip Navigation
American College of Physicians Logo
  • Subscribe
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Sign In
    Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
    INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
    Sign In|Set Up Account
    You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
    INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
    Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
    Annals of Internal Medicine
    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to Annals of Internal Medicine.
    You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your purchase.
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo Menu
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives
  • Author Info
Advanced Search
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Reviews |15 July 2014

Effects of Nurse-Managed Protocols in the Outpatient Management of Adults With Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Free

Ryan J. Shaw, PhD, RN; Jennifer R. McDuffie, PhD; Cristina C. Hendrix, DNS, NP; Alison Edie, DNP, FNP; Linda Lindsey-Davis, PhD, RN; Avishek Nagi, MS; Andrzej S. Kosinski, PhD; John W. Williams Jr., MD, MHSc

Ryan J. Shaw, PhD, RN
From Durham Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Jennifer R. McDuffie, PhD
From Durham Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Cristina C. Hendrix, DNS, NP
From Durham Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Alison Edie, DNP, FNP
From Durham Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Linda Lindsey-Davis, PhD, RN
From Durham Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Avishek Nagi, MS
From Durham Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Andrzej S. Kosinski, PhD
From Durham Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

John W. Williams Jr., MD, MHSc
From Durham Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
  • From Durham Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

    Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or Duke University. All work herein is original. All authors meet the criteria for authorship, including acceptance of responsibility for the scientific content of the manuscript.

    Acknowledgment: The authors thank Connie Schardt, MLS, for help with the literature search and retrieval and Liz Wing, MA, for editorial assistance.

    Financial Support: This report is based on research conducted by the Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) Center located at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, which is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development (VA-ESP Project 09-010; 2013). The first author, Dr. Ryan Shaw, was supported by a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Office of Academic Affiliations nursing postdoctoral research award (TPP-21-021).

    Disclosures: Dr. Williams reports grants from Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development during the conduct of the study. Authors not named here have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M13-2567.

    Requests for Single Reprints: Ryan J. Shaw, PhD, RN, Health Services Research and Development (152), 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC 27701; e-mail, ryan.shaw@duke.edu.

    Current Author Addresses: Drs. Shaw and McDuffie: Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC 27701.

    Drs. Hendrix, Edie, and Lindsey-Davis: Duke University School of Nursing, 307 Trent Drive, DUMC 3322, Durham, NC 27701.

    Mr. Nagi and Dr. Williams: Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 500, Durham, NC 27701.

    Dr. Kosinski: Duke Clinical Research Institute, 2400 Pratt Street, Room 7058, Durham, NC 27705.

    Author Contributions: Conception and design: R.J. Shaw, J.R. McDuffie, C.C. Hendrix, A. Edie, L. Lindsey-Davis, J.W. Williams.

    Analysis and interpretation of the data: R.J. Shaw, J.R. McDuffie, C.C. Hendrix, J.W. Williams.

    Drafting of the article: R.J. Shaw, J.R. McDuffie, J.W. Williams.

    Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: R.J. Shaw, J.R. McDuffie, C.C. Hendrix, A.S. Kosinski, J.W. Williams.

    Final approval of the article: R.J. Shaw, J.W. Williams.

    Provision of study materials or patients: J.R. McDuffie, J.W. Williams.

    Statistical expertise: A.S. Kosinski, J.W. Williams.

    Obtaining of funding: J.W. Williams.

    Administrative, technical, or logistic support: J.R. McDuffie, A. Nagi, J.W. Williams.

    Collection and assembly of data: R.J. Shaw, J.R. McDuffie, C.C. Hendrix, A. Edie, L. Lindsey-Davis, A. Nagi, J.W. Williams.

×
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Jump To
  • Full Article
  • FULL ARTICLE
  • FULL ARTICLE
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
      1. References
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplements
  • Audio/Video
  • Summary for Patients
  • Clinical Slide Sets
  • CME / MOC
  • Comments
  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
  • Email Link
More
  • LinkedIn Link

Abstract

Background:

Changes in federal health policy are providing more access to medical care for persons with chronic disease. Providing quality care may require a team approach, which the American College of Physicians calls the “medical home.” One new model may involve nurse-managed protocols.

Purpose:

To determine whether nurse-managed protocols are effective for outpatient management of adults with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Data Sources:

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and CINAHL from January 1980 through January 2014.

Study Selection:

Two reviewers used eligibility criteria to assess all titles, abstracts, and full texts and resolved disagreements by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer.

Data Extraction:

One reviewer did data abstractions and quality assessments, which were confirmed by a second reviewer.

Data Synthesis:

From 2954 studies, 18 were included. All studies used a registered nurse or equivalent who titrated medications by following a protocol. In a meta-analysis, hemoglobin A1c level decreased by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1% to 0.7%) (n = 8); systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased by 3.68 mm Hg (CI, 1.05 to 6.31 mm Hg) and 1.56 mm Hg (CI, 0.36 to 2.76 mm Hg), respectively (n = 12); total cholesterol level decreased by 0.24 mmol/L (9.37 mg/dL) (CI, 0.54-mmol/L decrease to 0.05-mmol/L increase [20.77-mg/dL decrease to 2.02-mg/dL increase]) (n = 9); and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased by 0.31 mmol/L (12.07 mg/dL) (CI, 0.73-mmol/L decrease to 0.11-mmol/L increase [28.27-mg/dL decrease to 4.13-mg/dL increase]) (n = 6).

Limitation:

Studies had limited descriptions of the interventions and protocols used.

Conclusion:

A team approach that uses nurse-managed protocols may have positive effects on the outpatient management of adults with chronic conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Primary Funding Source:

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Medical management of chronic illness consumes 75% of every health care dollar spent in the United States (1). Thus, provision of economical and accessible—yet high-quality—care is a major concern. Diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia are prime examples of chronic diseases that cause substantial morbidity and mortality (2, 3) and require long-term medical management. For each of these disorders, most care occurs in outpatient settings where well-established clinical practice guidelines are available (4–7). Despite the availability of these guidelines, there are important gaps between the care recommended and the care delivered (8–10). The shortage of primary care clinicians has been identified as 1 barrier to the provision of comprehensive care for chronic disease (11, 12) and is an impetus to develop strategies for expanding the roles and responsibilities of other interdisciplinary team members to help meet this increasing need.
The patient-centered medical home concept was developed in an effort to serve more persons and improve chronic disease care. It is a model of primary care transformation that builds on other efforts, such as the chronic care model (13), and includes the following elements: patient-centered orientation toward the whole person, team-based care coordinated across the health care system and community, enhanced access to care, and a systems-based approach to quality and safety. Care teams may include nurses, primary care providers, pharmacists, and behavioral health specialists. An organizing principle for care teams is to utilize personnel at the highest level of their skill set, which is particularly relevant given the expected increase in demand for primary care services resulting from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
With this increased demand, the largest health care workforce, registered nurses (RNs), may be a valuable asset alongside other nonphysician clinicians, including physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical pharmacists, to serve more persons and improve chronic disease care. Robust evidence supports the effectiveness of nurses in providing patient education about chronic disease and secondary prevention strategies (14–19). With clearly defined protocols and training, nurses may also be able to order relevant diagnostic tests, adjust routine medications, and appropriately refer patients.
Our purpose was to synthesize the current literature describing the effects of nurse-managed protocols, including medication adjustment, for the outpatient management of adults with common chronic conditions, namely diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Methods

We followed a standard protocol for all steps of this review. A technical report that fully details our methods and presents results for all original research questions is available at www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/reports.cfm.

Data Sources and Searches

In consultation with a master librarian, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and CINAHL from 1 January 1980 through 31 January 2014 for English-language, peer-reviewed publications evaluating interventions that compared nurse-managed protocols with usual care in studies targeting adults with chronic conditions (Supplement 1).
We selected exemplary articles and used a Medical Subject Heading analyzer to identify terms for “nurse protocols.” We added selected free-text terms and validated search terms for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies, and we searched bibliographies of exemplary studies and applicable systematic reviews for missed publications (15, 17, 20–29). To assess for publication bias, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify completed but unpublished studies meeting our eligibility criteria.

Study Selection, Data Extraction, and Quality Assessment

Two reviewers used prespecified eligibility criteria to assess all titles and abstracts (Supplement 2). Eligibility criteria included the involvement of an RN or a licensed practical nurse (LPN) functioning beyond the usual scope of practice, such as adjusting medications and conducting interventions based on a written protocol. Potentially eligible articles were retrieved for further evaluation. Disagreements on inclusion or exclusion were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Studies excluded at full-text review are listed in Supplement 3. Abstraction and quality assessment were done by 1 reviewer and confirmed by a second. We piloted the abstraction forms, designed specifically for this review, on a sample of included articles. Key characteristics abstracted included patient descriptors, setting, features of the intervention and comparator, match between the sample and target populations, extent of the nurse interventionist's training, outcomes, and quality elements. Supplements 4 and 5 summarize quality criteria and ratings, respectively.
Because many studies were done outside the United States, we queried the authors of such studies about the education and scope of practice of the nurse interventionists. Authors were e-mailed a table detailing the credentialing and scope of practice of various U.S. nurses and asked to classify their nurse interventionist.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

The primary outcomes were the effects of nurse-managed protocols on biophysical markers (for example, glycosylated hemoglobin or hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]), patient treatment adherence, nurse protocol adherence, adverse effects, and resource use. When quantitative synthesis (that is, meta-analysis) was feasible, dichotomous outcomes were combined using odds ratios and continuous outcomes were combined using mean differences in random-effects models. For studies with unique but conceptually similar outcomes, such as ordering a guideline-indicated laboratory test, we synthesized outcomes across conditions if intervention effects were sufficiently homogeneous. We used the Knapp and Hartung method (30, 31) to adjust the SEs of the estimated coefficients.
For categories with several potential outcomes (for example, biophysical markers) that may vary across chronic conditions, we selected outcomes for each chronic condition a priori: HbA1c level for diabetes, blood pressure (BP) for hypertension, and cholesterol level for hyperlipidemia. In 1 example (32), we imputed missing SDs using estimates from similar studies.
We computed summary estimates of effect and evaluated statistical heterogeneity using the Cochran Q and I2 statistics. We did subgroup analyses to examine potential sources of heterogeneity, including where the study was conducted and intervention content. Subgroup analyses involved indirect comparisons and were subject to confounding; thus, results were interpreted cautiously. Publication bias was assessed using a ClinicalTrials.gov search and funnel plots when at least 10 studies were included in the analysis.
When quantitative synthesis was not feasible, we analyzed data qualitatively. We gave more weight to evidence from higher-quality studies with more precise estimates of effect. The qualitative syntheses identified and documented patterns in efficacy and safety of the intervention across conditions and outcome categories. We analyzed potential reasons for inconsistency in treatment effects across studies by evaluating variables, such as differences in study population, intervention, comparator, and outcome definitions.
We followed the approach recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (33) to evaluate the overall strength of the body of evidence. This approach assesses the following 4 domains: risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision. These domains were considered qualitatively, and a summary rating of high, moderate, low, or insufficient evidence was assigned.

Role of the Funding Source

The Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative funded the research but did not participate in the conduct of the study or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Results

Our electronic and manual searches identified 2954 unique citations (Figure 1). Of the 23 potentially eligible studies, 4 were excluded because we could not verify whether nurses had the authority to initiate or titrate medications and the author did not respond to our query for clarification (34–37). We excluded a trial of older adults in which we could not differentiate the target illnesses (38). Approximately two thirds of the authors we contacted for missing data or clarification responded.
Figure 1.

Summary of evidence search and selection.

* Methods or follow-up articles.

We included 18 unique studies (23 004 patients) that focused on patients with elevated cardiovascular risk (Table) (32, 39–55). Of these, 16 were RCTs and 2 were controlled before-and-after studies on diabetes (49, 53). The comparator was usual care in all but 1 study, in which a reverse-control design was used, and each intervention served as the control for the other. Eleven studies were done in Western Europe and 7 in the United States. Median age of participants was 58.3 years (range, 37.2 to 72.1 years) based on 16 studies. Approximately 47% of the participants were female. Race was not reported in 84% of the studies. Supplement 5 gives detailed study characteristics. No outstanding studies were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov. Supplement 6 provides funnel plots that assess publication bias.

Table. Study and Patient Characteristics of Included Diabetes, Hypertension, and Hyperlipidemia Studies

Table. Study and Patient Characteristics of Included Diabetes, Hypertension, and Hyperlipidemia Studies
Overall, these studies displayed moderate risk of bias. Two studies were judged as having a high risk of bias because of inadequate randomization (44, 53), 12 were moderate risk (32, 39–41, 43, 47–52, 54), and 4 were low risk (42, 45, 46, 55). Other design issues affecting risk-of-bias ratings were possible contamination from a concurrent intervention, unblinded outcome assessors, and incomplete outcomes data.

Characteristics of the Interventions

All 18 study interventions used a protocol and required the nurse to titrate medications; however, only 11 reported that the nurse was independently allowed to initiate new medications. All but 1 study (55) provided the actual algorithm or citation. An RN (not an advanced practice RN) was the interventionist in all U.S. studies; a nurse with an equal scope of practice was the interventionist in the non-U.S. studies. No studies reported use of LPNs. In 14 studies, interventions were delivered in a nurse-led clinic (39–42, 44, 46–54). Supervisors were nearly always physicians. Of the studies reporting nurses' training, 3 used specialists (for example, diabetes-certified), 10 used RNs with study-specific training, and 1 used nurse case managers with experience in coordinating long-term care.
Nurse protocols included additional components, such as education or self-management, in 16 studies. Two studies (41, 47) did not report additional intervention. Baseline characteristics showed that patients with diabetes had an elevated HbA1c level of approximately 8.0% or greater. Most patients with hypertension had moderate hypertension, and patients with hyperlipidemia had borderline high lipid levels. Outcomes were assessed at 6 to 36 months, with most studies reporting outcomes at 12 months or longer.

Diabetes Outcomes

Of the 15 studies done in patients with diabetes, 10 RCTs (2633 patients) targeted glucose control. Figure 2 shows the forest plot of the random-effects meta-analysis on HbA1c level. Compared with usual care, nurse-managed protocols decreased HbA1c levels by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1% to 0.7%) (n = 8) and effects varied substantially (Q = 23.19; I2 = 70%). In the 2 non-RCTs (49, 53) not included in Figure 2, effects of the protocols on HbA1c level were larger and in the same direction but had higher variability. Thus, nurse-managed protocols were associated with a highly variable mean decrease in HbA1c level.
Figure 2.

Effects of nurse-managed protocols on hemoglobin A1c level.

Other diabetes-related performance measures were rarely reported (Supplement 6). In 1 controlled before-and-after study (53), achieving target eye examination, urinary microalbumin–creatinine ratio, and foot examination goals was reported to reach 80% to 100% using nurse-managed protocols. A second study (49) found a nonsignificant increase in intervention patients achieving eye and foot examination goals compared with control participants. Reduction in the proportion of patients with an HbA1c level of 8.5% or greater was achieved in 1 study (odds ratio, 1.69 [CI, 1.25 to 2.29]) (49).

BP Outcomes

Fourteen studies reported BP outcomes: 13 RCTs (10 362 patients) and 1 non-RCT (885 patients). Restricted to the 12 RCTs specifically addressing BP (10 224 patients), the intervention decreased systolic BP by 3.68 mm Hg (CI, 1.05 to −6.31 mm Hg) and diastolic BP by 1.56 mm Hg (CI, 0.36 to 2.76 mm Hg), with high variability (I2 > 70%) (Figures 3 and 4). Funnel plots suggested possible publication bias with systolic but not diastolic BP (Supplement 6). Overall, nurse-managed protocols were associated with a mean decrease in systolic and diastolic BP.
Figure 3.

Effects of nurse-managed protocols on systolic (top) and diastolic (bottom) blood pressure.

Figure 4.

Effects of nurse-managed protocols on total cholesterol (top) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (bottom) levels.

To convert mg/dL to mmol/L, multiply by 0.0259.

Eleven of the 18 studies focused on achieving various target BPs: 10 RCTs (9707 patients) and 1 non-RCT (885 patients). When the analysis was restricted to RCTs, nurse-managed protocols were more likely to achieve target BP than control protocols (odds ratio, 1.41 [CI, 0.98 to 2.02]), but these results could have been due to chance, and treatment effects were highly variable (Q = 35.20; I2 = 74%) (Supplement 7). Using the summary odds ratio and median event rate from the control group of the trials that implemented nurse protocols, we estimated the absolute treatment effect as a risk difference of 120 more patients achieving target total BP per 1000 patients (CI, 6 fewer to 244 more). Funnel plots suggested some asymmetry but no clear publication bias.

Hyperlipidemia Outcomes

Fifteen studies reported hyperlipidemia outcomes: 13 RCTs (14 817 patients) and 2 non-RCTs (1114 patients). Of these, 9 RCTs (3494 patients) specifically addressed total cholesterol levels and 6 RCTs specifically addressed low-density lipoprotein levels (1095 patients). In analyses restricted to these trials, the intervention was associated with a decrease in total cholesterol level. Total cholesterol levels decreased by 0.24 mmol/L (9.37 mg/dL) (CI, 0.54-mmol/L decrease to 0.05-mmol/L increase [20.77-mg/dL decrease to 2.02-mg/dL increase]) (n = 9), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels decreased by 0.31 mmol/L (12.07 mg/dL) (CI, 0.73-mmol/L decrease to 0.11-mmol/L increase [28.27-mg/dL decrease to 4.13-mg/dL increase]) (n = 6), with marked variability in intervention effects (I2 ≥ 89%) (Figure 4). Effects of nurse-managed protocols on total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from the 2 non-RCTs (49, 53) were in the same direction. Reductions in total cholesterol level were not statistically significant. Overall, nurse-managed protocols were associated with a mean decrease in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.
All 11 studies (9221 patients) targeting various total cholesterol levels were included in the quantitative analysis (Supplement 7). Nurse-managed protocols were statistically significantly more likely to achieve target total cholesterol levels than control protocols (odds ratio, 1.54 [CI, 1.02 to 2.31]), with substantial variability in treatment effects (Q = 71.59; I2 = 86%). Using the summary odds ratio and median event rate from the control group of the RCTs, we estimated the absolute treatment effect as a risk difference of 106 more patients achieving target total cholesterol levels per 1000 patients (CI, 5 to 196). Funnel plots did not suggest publication bias (Supplement 6).

Patient Adherence to Treatment

Behavioral adherence was reported in 4 studies (39, 43, 48, 49). In 1 study, the rate of daily medication adherence (±SE) for the intervention group during the 6-month study was 80.5% ± 23.0% compared with 69.2% ±31.1% for the usual care group (P = 0.03) (55). When reported, effects on lifestyle changes and medication adherence showed an overall pattern of small positive effects associated with nurse-managed protocols.

Adherence to Protocols

Two studies (39, 52) reported data on nurses' adherence to treatment protocols. When compared with usual care, nurses instituted pharmacologic therapy for lipid management more often (39). O'Hare and colleagues (52) found that hypoglycemic agents and antihypertensives, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II antagonists, and statins, were started or doses were increased by nurses following treatment protocols more often than in usual care groups.

Adverse Effects

The included studies had few reports on adverse effects associated with nurse-managed protocols. Only 1 study on diabetes in a U.S. HMO (40) reported adverse effects. Severe low blood glucose events were identical (1.5%) at baseline and increased similarly—2.9% in the control group compared with 3.1% in the intervention group (P = 0.158).

Resource Use

Resource use was reported in only 3 studies (45, 47, 51). Houweling and colleagues (47) found total salary costs (±SE) to be significantly lower in the intervention group (€114.6 ± €50.4) than in the control group (€138.3 ± €48.3; P < 0.001). In this same study, total costs for medication were reported to be lower in the intervention groups (€136.3 ± €91.9) than in the control group (€149.0 ± €94.4; P > 0.05) at study completion.
Inpatient costs were reported to be substantially lower in 2 other studies. One study (45) estimated total inpatient costs for the intervention group at $869 535 compared with $1 702 682 for the control group (P = 0.02). The second study (51) reported decreases in costs by sex, with the intervention groups achieving a decrease of $606 for men and $888 for women. Further, total outpatient costs were reported at $1 237 270 in the nurse-managed protocol group compared with $1 381 900 in the control group (P = 0.47) (51).

Subgroup Analysis

We did subgroup analyses comparing studies that were conducted in the United States compared with other countries, had targeted HbA1c alone compared with multiple conditions, and incorporated self-management plans compared with those that did not. These analyses showed greater effects on decreasing HbA1c level only for studies done on diabetes management in the United States (−0.92 vs. −0.23; P = 0.01). Treatment variability was reduced in these subgroups. Therefore, some variability in diabetes care may be explained by country or specificity of the intervention. For BP and cholesterol, subgroup analysis found no statistically significant differences in treatment effects. We planned to conduct subgroup analyses examining the intervention primarily by clinic visits compared with telephone calls, but variability in the results was insufficient.

Discussion

Nurse-managed protocols in the studies we examined had a consistently positive effect on chronically ill patients. Hemoglobin A1c levels decreased by approximately 0.4% (moderate strength of evidence [SOE]). Systolic and diastolic BP decreased by 4 mm Hg and 2 mm Hg, respectively (moderate SOE). Total cholesterol levels decreased by 0.24 mmol/L (9.37 mg/dL), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels decreased by 0.31 mmol/L (12.07 mg/dL) (low SOE). Important differences were found in treatment effects across studies for most outcomes. Subgroup analyses explained little of this variability and showed differences only for effects on HbA1c level between non–U.S.-based and U.S.-based studies. Effects of nurse-managed protocols on lifestyle changes and medication adherence were reported infrequently, but when reported, they showed an overall pattern of small positive effects (low SOE).
The SOE was insufficient to estimate a treatment effect for all other outcomes: protocol adherence, adverse effects, and resource use. Indirect evidence (for example, proportion of patients prescribed the indicated medication) suggests reasonable adherence to the protocol by nurses. Although these studies showed protocol adherence by nurses in intervention groups compared with control participants, the SOE on nurse adherence was judged to be insufficient. Further, only 1 of the 18 studies reported adverse effects (40); therefore, the SOE was judged to be insufficient to determine the effect of nurse-managed protocols on adverse effects in treatment studies about chronic disease. Finally, resource use was reported in only 3 studies (45, 47, 51), so the evidence is insufficient to determine any effect.
Our study has many strengths, including a protocol-driven review, a comprehensive search, careful quality assessment, and rigorous quantitative synthesis methods. However, our report and the literature also have limitations. Because inclusion criteria required medication titration, we may have missed studies in which nurses had autonomy to practice in other capacities beyond their scope of practice. We did not include studies of inpatient settings in which nurses might often use protocols. The literature lacked detailed descriptions of the interventions and protocols used. Studies had limited descriptions of intervention intensity; treatment adherence; nurses' education levels, training, or supervision; protocol adherence; adverse effects; and resource use. Eleven of the 18 studies were done in countries outside the United States, which may limit applicability to U.S practices. Other performance measures were rarely reported. Studies were limited to the use of RNs; there was no report of using LPNs. Finally, the reported outcomes varied across studies and contributed to unexplained variability.
With changes in federal health policy, new models are needed to provide more accessible and effective chronic disease care. The implementation of a patient-centered medical home model will play a critical role in reconfiguring team-based care and will expand the responsibilities of team members. Our review shows that team approaches using nurse-managed protocols help improve health outcomes among patients with moderately severe diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. In addition, RNs can successfully titrate medications according to protocols for these conditions. Similar results were found on the effects of quality improvement strategies on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes where case managers did not have to wait for physician approval to adjust medications (56). Further research is needed to understand the effects of nurse-managed protocols in caring for complex or unstable patients. Supplement 8 presents a detailed table of identified evidence gaps and a framework for future research.
As the largest health care workforce group, nurses are in an ideal position to collaborate with other team members in the delivery of more accessible and effective chronic disease care. Team members, such as clinical pharmacists, may also be able to serve in similar capacities and in areas with limited health care resources (57). Thus, health care systems will need to balance the benefits and costs associated with each team member and determine who is best suited to take on these expanded roles. Results from our review suggest that nurse-managed protocols have positive effects on outpatient care of adults with chronic conditions.

References

  1. Institute of Medicine. Living well with chronic illness: a call to public health action. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science; 2012. Accessed at www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2012/Living-Well-with-Chronic-Illness/livingwell_chronicillness_reportbrief.pdf on 6 June 2013.
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    Vital signs: prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension—United States, 1999–2002 and 2005–2008.
    MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
    2011
    60
    103
    8
     PubMed
     PubMed
  3. Yach
    D
    ,  
    Hawkes
    C
    ,  
    Gould
    CL
    ,  
    Hofman
    KJ
    .  
    The global burden of chronic diseases: overcoming impediments to prevention and control.
    JAMA
    2004
    291
    2616
    22
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  4. Chobanian
    AV
    ,  
    Bakris
    GL
    ,  
    Black
    HR
    ,  
    Cushman
    WC
    ,  
    Green
    LA
    ,  
    Izzo
    JL
    Jr
    ,  
    et al
    Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure
    National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.
    Hypertension
    2003
    42
    1206
    52
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  5. American Diabetes Association
    Standards of medical care in diabetes—2013.
    Diabetes Care
    2013
    36
    S11
    66
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  6. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III)
    Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report.
    Circulation
    2002
    106
    3143
    421
     PubMed
     PubMed
  7. Lindenfeld
    J
    ,  
    Albert
    NM
    ,  
    Boehmer
    JP
    ,  
    Collins
    SP
    ,  
    Ezekowitz
    JA
    ,  
    Givertz
    MM
    ,  
    et al
    Heart Failure Society of America
    HFSA 2010 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline.
    J Card Fail
    2010
    16
    e1
    194
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  8. Smith
    SC
    Jr
    .  
    Clinical treatment of dyslipidemia: practice patterns and missed opportunities.
    Am J Cardiol
    2000
    86
    62L
    65L
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  9. Shafazand
    S
    ,  
    Yang
    Y
    ,  
    Amore
    E
    ,  
    O'Neal
    W
    ,  
    Brixner
    D
    .  
    A retrospective, observational cohort analysis of a nationwide database to compare heart failure prescriptions and related health care utilization before and after publication of updated treatment guidelines in the United States.
    Clin Ther
    2010
    32
    1642
    50
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  10. Nichol
    MB
    ,  
    Knight
    TK
    ,  
    Priest
    JL
    ,  
    Wu
    J
    ,  
    Cantrell
    CR
    .  
    Nonadherence to clinical practice guidelines and medications for multiple chronic conditions in a California Medicaid population.
    J Am Pharm Assoc (2003)
    2010
    50
    496
    507
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  11. Jessup
    M
    ,  
    Albert
    NM
    ,  
    Lanfear
    DE
    ,  
    Lindenfeld
    J
    ,  
    Massie
    BM
    ,  
    Walsh
    MN
    ,  
    et al
    ACCF Heart Failure and Transplant Committee
    ACCF/AHA/HFSA 2011 survey results: current staffing profile of heart failure programs, including programs that perform heart transplant and mechanical circulatory support device implantation.
    J Card Fail
    2011
    17
    349
    58
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  12. Arnold
    M
    ,  
    Kaan
    AM
    ,  
    Howlett
    J
    ,  
    Ignaszewski
    A
    ,  
    LeBlanc
    MH
    ,  
    Liu
    P
    ,  
    et al
    Specialized heart failure outpatient clinics: What staff are required, what is their workload, and can these data facilitate the planning of new heart failure clinics?
    J Card Fail
    2011
    17
    S109
    CrossRef
  13. Klein S. The veterans health administration: implementing patient-centered medical homes in the nation's largest integrated delivery system. New York: The Commonwealth Fund; 2011. Accessed at www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Case-Studies/2011/Sep/VA-Medical-Homes.aspx on 5 June 2012.
  14. Stanley
    JM
    .  
    Advanced Practice Nursing: Emphasizing Common Roles. 3rd ed.
    Philadelphia
    F.A. Davis
    2011
  15. Tshiananga
    JK
    ,  
    Kocher
    S
    ,  
    Weber
    C
    ,  
    Erny-Albrecht
    K
    ,  
    Berndt
    K
    ,  
    Neeser
    K
    .  
    The effect of nurse-led diabetes self-management education on glycosylated hemoglobin and cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis.
    Diabetes Educ
    2012
    38
    108
    23
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  16. Joseph
    P
    ,  
    Teo
    K
    .  
    Optimal medical therapy, lifestyle intervention, and secondary prevention strategies for cardiovascular event reduction in ischemic heart disease.
    Curr Cardiol Rep
    2011
    13
    287
    95
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  17. Allen
    JK
    ,  
    Dennison
    CR
    .  
    Randomized trials of nursing interventions for secondary prevention in patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure: systematic review.
    J Cardiovasc Nurs
    2010
    25
    207
    20
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  18. Wilhelmsson
    S
    ,  
    Lindberg
    M
    .  
    Prevention and health promotion and evidence-based fields of nursing—a literature review.
    Int J Nurs Pract
    2007
    13
    254
    65
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  19. Haskell
    WL
    .  
    Cardiovascular disease prevention and lifestyle interventions: effectiveness and efficacy.
    J Cardiovasc Nurs
    2003
    18
    245
    55
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  20. Berra
    K
    .  
    Does nurse case management improve implementation of guidelines for cardiovascular disease risk reduction?
    J Cardiovasc Nurs
    2011
    26
    145
    67
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  21. Brown
    SA
    .  
    Meta-analysis of diabetes patient education research: variations in intervention effects across studies.
    Res Nurs Health
    1992
    15
    409
    19
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  22. Clark
    CE
    ,  
    Smith
    LF
    ,  
    Taylor
    RS
    ,  
    Campbell
    JL
    .  
    Nurse led interventions to improve control of blood pressure in people with hypertension: systematic review and meta-analysis.
    BMJ
    2010
    341
    c3995
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  23. Clark
    CE
    ,  
    Smith
    LF
    ,  
    Taylor
    RS
    ,  
    Campbell
    JL
    .  
    Nurse-led interventions used to improve control of high blood pressure in people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Diabet Med
    2011
    28
    250
    61
     PubMed
     PubMed
  24. Driscoll
    A
    ,  
    Currey
    J
    ,  
    Tonkin
    A
    ,  
    Krum
    H
    .  
    Nurse-led titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-adrenergic blocking agents and angiotensin receptor blockers for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction [Protocol].
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2012
    CD009889
  25. Glynn
    LG
    ,  
    Murphy
    AW
    ,  
    Smith
    SM
    ,  
    Schroeder
    K
    ,  
    Fahey
    T
    .  
    Interventions used to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2010
    CD005182
     PubMed
  26. Loveman
    E
    ,  
    Royle
    P
    ,  
    Waugh
    N
    .  
    Specialist nurses in diabetes mellitus.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2003
    CD003286
     PubMed
  27. Newhouse
    RP
    ,  
    Stanik-Hutt
    J
    ,  
    White
    KM
    ,  
    Johantgen
    M
    ,  
    Bass
    EB
    ,  
    Zangaro
    G
    ,  
    et al
    Advanced practice nurse outcomes 1990-2008: a systematic review.
    Nurse Econ
    2011
    29
    230
    50
     PubMed
  28. Loveman
    E
    ,  
    Royle
    P
    ,  
    Waugh
    N
    .  
    Specialist nurses in diabetes mellitus.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2003
    CD003286
     PubMed
  29. Welch
    G
    ,  
    Garb
    J
    ,  
    Zagarins
    S
    ,  
    Lendel
    I
    ,  
    Gabbay
    RA
    .  
    Nurse diabetes case management interventions and blood glucose control: results of a meta-analysis.
    Diabetes Res Clin Pract
    2010
    88
    1
    6
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  30. Knapp
    G
    ,  
    Hartung
    J
    .  
    Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate.
    Stat Med
    2003
    22
    2693
    710
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  31. DerSimonian
    R
    ,  
    Laird
    N
    .  
    Meta-analysis in clinical trials.
    Control Clin Trials
    1986
    7
    177
    88
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  32. Taylor
    CB
    ,  
    Miller
    NH
    ,  
    Reilly
    KR
    ,  
    Greenwald
    G
    ,  
    Cunning
    D
    ,  
    Deeter
    A
    ,  
    et al
    Evaluation of a nurse-care management system to improve outcomes in patients with complicated diabetes.
    Diabetes Care
    2003
    26
    1058
    63
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  33. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. Accessed at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=318 on 16 March 2012.
  34. Konstam
    V
    ,  
    Gregory
    D
    ,  
    Chen
    J
    ,  
    Weintraub
    A
    ,  
    Patel
    A
    ,  
    Levine
    D
    ,  
    et al
    Health-related quality of life in a multicenter randomized controlled comparison of telephonic disease management and automated home monitoring in patients recently hospitalized with heart failure: SPAN-CHF II trial.
    J Card Fail
    2011
    17
    151
    7
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  35. Rao
    A
    ,  
    Walsh
    J
    .  
    Impact of specialist care in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure: a randomised controlled study.
    Int J Cardiol
    2007
    115
    196
    202
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  36. Senaratne
    MP
    ,  
    Griffiths
    J
    ,  
    Mooney
    D
    ,  
    Kasza
    L
    ,  
    Macdonald
    K
    ,  
    Hare
    S
    .  
    Effectiveness of a planned strategy using cardiac rehabilitation nurses for the management of dyslipidemia in patients with coronary artery disease.
    Am Heart J
    2001
    142
    975
    81
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  37. Varney
    S
    .  
    A cost-effectiveness analysis of bisoprolol for heart failure.
    Eur J Heart Fail
    2001
    3
    365
    71
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  38. Dorr
    DA
    ,  
    Wilcox
    AB
    ,  
    Brunker
    CP
    ,  
    Burdon
    RE
    ,  
    Donnelly
    SM
    .  
    The effect of technology-supported, multidisease care management on the mortality and hospitalization of seniors.
    J Am Geriatr Soc
    2008
    56
    2195
    202
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  39. Allison
    TG
    ,  
    Squires
    RW
    ,  
    Johnson
    BD
    ,  
    Gau
    GT
    .  
    Achieving National Cholesterol Education Program goals for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in cardiac patients: importance of diet, exercise, weight control, and drug therapy.
    Mayo Clin Proc
    1999
    74
    466
    73
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  40. Aubert
    RE
    ,  
    Herman
    WH
    ,  
    Waters
    J
    ,  
    Moore
    W
    ,  
    Sutton
    D
    ,  
    Peterson
    BL
    ,  
    et al
    Nurse case management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization. A randomized, controlled trial.
    Ann Intern Med
    1998
    129
    605
    12
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  41. Bebb
    C
    ,  
    Kendrick
    D
    ,  
    Coupland
    C
    ,  
    Madeley
    R
    ,  
    Stewart
    J
    ,  
    Brown
    K
    ,  
    et al
    A cluster randomised controlled trial of the effect of a treatment algorithm for hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes.
    Br J Gen Pract
    2007
    57
    136
    43
     PubMed
     PubMed
  42. Bellary
    S
    ,  
    O'Hare
    JP
    ,  
    Raymond
    NT
    ,  
    Gumber
    A
    ,  
    Mughal
    S
    ,  
    Szczepura
    A
    ,  
    et al
    UKADS Study Group
    Enhanced diabetes care to patients of south Asian ethnic origin (the United Kingdom Asian Diabetes Study): a cluster randomised controlled trial.
    Lancet
    2008
    371
    1769
    76
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  43. DeBusk
    RF
    ,  
    Miller
    NH
    ,  
    Superko
    HR
    ,  
    Dennis
    CA
    ,  
    Thomas
    RJ
    ,  
    Lew
    HT
    ,  
    et al
    A case-management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction.
    Ann Intern Med
    1994
    120
    721
    9
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  44. Denver
    EA
    ,  
    Barnard
    M
    ,  
    Woolfson
    RG
    ,  
    Earle
    KA
    .  
    Management of uncontrolled hypertension in a nurse-led clinic compared with conventional care for patients with type 2 diabetes.
    Diabetes Care
    2003
    26
    2256
    60
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  45. Fischer
    HH
    ,  
    Eisert
    SL
    ,  
    Everhart
    RM
    ,  
    Durfee
    MJ
    ,  
    Moore
    SL
    ,  
    Soria
    S
    ,  
    et al
    Nurse-run, telephone-based outreach to improve lipids in people with diabetes.
    Am J Manag Care
    2012
    18
    77
    84
     PubMed
     PubMed
  46. Houweling
    ST
    ,  
    Kleefstra
    N
    ,  
    van Hateren
    KJ
    ,  
    Groenier
    KH
    ,  
    Meyboom-de Jong
    B
    ,  
    Bilo
    HJ
    .  
    Can diabetes management be safely transferred to practice nurses in a primary care setting? A randomised controlled trial.
    J Clin Nurs
    2011
    20
    1264
    72
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  47. Houweling
    ST
    ,  
    Kleefstra
    N
    ,  
    van Hateren
    KJ
    ,  
    Kooy
    A
    ,  
    Groenier
    KH
    ,  
    Ten Vergert
    E
    ,  
    et al
    Langerhans Medical Research Group
    Diabetes specialist nurse as main care provider for patients with type 2 diabetes.
    Neth J Med
    2009
    67
    279
    84
     PubMed
     PubMed
  48. MacMahon Tone
    J
    ,  
    Agha
    A
    ,  
    Sherlock
    M
    ,  
    Finucane
    F
    ,  
    Tormey
    W
    ,  
    Thompson
    CJ
    .  
    An intensive nurse-led, multi-interventional clinic is more successful in achieving vascular risk reduction targets than standard diabetes care.
    Ir J Med Sci
    2009
    178
    179
    86
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  49. Meulepas
    MA
    ,  
    Braspenning
    JC
    ,  
    de Grauw
    WJ
    ,  
    Lucas
    AE
    ,  
    Wijkel
    D
    ,  
    Grol
    RP
    .  
    Patient-oriented intervention in addition to centrally organised checkups improves diabetic patient outcome in primary care.
    Qual Saf Health Care
    2008
    17
    324
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  50. New
    JP
    ,  
    Mason
    JM
    ,  
    Freemantle
    N
    ,  
    Teasdale
    S
    ,  
    Wong
    L
    ,  
    Bruce
    NJ
    ,  
    et al
    Educational outreach in diabetes to encourage practice nurses to use primary care hypertension and hyperlipidaemia guidelines (EDEN): a randomized controlled trial.
    Diabet Med
    2004
    21
    599
    603
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  51. New
    JP
    ,  
    Mason
    JM
    ,  
    Freemantle
    N
    ,  
    Teasdale
    S
    ,  
    Wong
    LM
    ,  
    Bruce
    NJ
    ,  
    et al
    Specialist nurse-led intervention to treat and control hypertension and hyperlipidemia in diabetes (SPLINT): a randomized controlled trial.
    Diabetes Care
    2003
    26
    2250
    5
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  52. O'Hare
    JP
    ,  
    Raymond
    NT
    ,  
    Mughal
    S
    ,  
    Dodd
    L
    ,  
    Hanif
    W
    ,  
    Ahmad
    Y
    ,  
    et al
    UKADS Study Group
    Evaluation of delivery of enhanced diabetes care to patients of South Asian ethnicity: the United Kingdom Asian Diabetes Study (UKADS).
    Diabet Med
    2004
    21
    1357
    65
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  53. Philis-Tsimikas
    A
    ,  
    Walker
    C
    ,  
    Rivard
    L
    ,  
    Talavera
    G
    ,  
    Reimann
    JO
    ,  
    Salmon
    M
    ,  
    et al
    Project Dulce
    Improvement in diabetes care of underinsured patients enrolled in project dulce: a community-based, culturally appropriate, nurse case management and peer education diabetes care model.
    Diabetes Care
    2004
    27
    110
    5
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  54. Wallymahmed
    ME
    ,  
    Morgan
    C
    ,  
    Gill
    GV
    ,  
    Macfarlane
    IA
    .  
    Nurse-led cardiovascular risk factor intervention leads to improvements in cardiovascular risk targets and glycaemic control in people with Type 1 diabetes when compared with routine diabetes clinic attendance.
    Diabet Med
    2011
    28
    373
    9
     PubMed
     PubMed
  55. Rudd
    P
    ,  
    Miller
    NH
    ,  
    Kaufman
    J
    ,  
    Kraemer
    HC
    ,  
    Bandura
    A
    ,  
    Greenwald
    G
    ,  
    et al
    Nurse management for hypertension. A systems approach.
    Am J Hypertens
    2004
    17
    921
    7
     PubMed
     PubMed
  56. Shojania
    KG
    ,  
    Ranji
    SR
    ,  
    McDonald
    KM
    ,  
    Grimshaw
    JM
    ,  
    Sundaram
    V
    ,  
    Rushakoff
    RJ
    ,  
    et al
    Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis.
    JAMA
    2006
    296
    427
    40
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  57. Martinez
    AS
    ,  
    Saef
    J
    ,  
    Paszczuk
    A
    ,  
    Bhatt-Chugani
    H
    .  
    Implementation of a pharmacist-managed heart failure medication titration clinic.
    Am J Health Syst Pharm
    2013
    70
    1070
    6
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
Figure 1.

Summary of evidence search and selection.

* Methods or follow-up articles.

Figure 2.

Effects of nurse-managed protocols on hemoglobin A1c level.

Figure 3.

Effects of nurse-managed protocols on systolic (top) and diastolic (bottom) blood pressure.

Figure 4.

Effects of nurse-managed protocols on total cholesterol (top) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (bottom) levels.

To convert mg/dL to mmol/L, multiply by 0.0259.

Table. Study and Patient Characteristics of Included Diabetes, Hypertension, and Hyperlipidemia Studies

Table. Study and Patient Characteristics of Included Diabetes, Hypertension, and Hyperlipidemia Studies
PDF Supplemental Content
Supplement 1. Search Strategy
PDF Supplemental Content
Supplement 2. Eligibility Criteria
PDF Supplemental Content
Supplement 3. List of Excluded Studies
PDF Supplemental Content
Supplement 4. Criteria Used in Risk of Bias Assessment
PDF Supplemental Content
Supplement 5. Detailed Study Characteristics
PDF Supplemental Content
Supplement 6. Assessment of Publication Bias: Funnel Plots
PDF Supplemental Content
Supplement 7. Target Blood Pressure and Total Cholesterol Values
PDF Supplemental Content
Supplement 8. Evidence Gaps and Future Research

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More
Submit a Comment

2 Comments

Michelle A. Lucatorto APRN, DNP, FNP-BC; Storm Morgan MSN, RN, MBA

Veterans Health Administration

July 22, 2014

Conflict of Interest: The contents do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government

Nurses - An Untapped Resource in Primary Care

Shaw et al. does a nice job of quantifying clinical outcomes for patients who receive care by nurses using protocols. Jauhar and Battinelli follow with commentary asking if nurses are the answer to the national problem of primary care physician shortages at a time when demand for services continues to rise. We suggest that nurses are not the sole answer to the challenges in primary care; the solution is the implementation of high performing team-based care. However, nursing is a vital and untapped component of this high performing team. It literally takes a village to manage health care needs, including chronic conditions, care coordination, and promotion of self-care and self-management in a manner consistent with patient’s desires and values. This village includes nurses (RN, LPN), providers (MD, DO, APRN, and PAs), pharmacists, nutritionists, physical therapists, social workers and others – the list is too large to complete here. But in addition to having a full team, it is also essential that everyone functions to their full potential. As cited in the IOM report on team-based care, turf issues and verbalizing concerns about “independent practices” and who leads a team are barriers that emerge at a political level or at the top of organizations where the players are very much removed from the reality of care1. At the point of care, the most effective teams share leadership, recognize that professional practice can overlap, mentor each other, and develop deep mutual respect and appreciation.
In our roles working directly in and with both primary and specialty care teams, we regularly interact with the “front lines”. What is frequently and clearly heard is the desire for nurses to deliver patient care using protocols that include the initiation and titration of medications as part of team-based care. In sites where we have seen this piloted, teams reported an improved bond between pharmacy, nurses and providers, often with bidirectional mentoring occurring at all levels. In addition, the nurses reported that the pilot training they received for the protocol medication titration responsibilities enhanced their ability to coach and mentor patients, and ultimately improved their job satisfaction. In the UK, all primary care teams may engage in the use of protocols. The UK practice of nurse prescribing emerged sequentially beginning in 1989 with an advisory group, followed by pilots, development and funding of training programs, and legislation sanctioning the role of nurse prescribers. The UK has two levels of nurse prescribers – an independent level requiring significant academic training and a supplementary level. The supplementary role is one requiring the use of defined protocols for prescribing. In the United States, the independent nurse role is included with diagnostic and health care treatment in a full practice authority model for APRN practice. There is a great opportunity for the United States to define a supplementary protocol- based model of implementing treatment plans that include medications. We strongly support and endorse funding for piloting new programs, analysis of new and existing programs, and legislation to support a United States model for supplemental registered nurse practice. When will the United States catch up?
1. Mitchell, P., M. Wynia, R. Golden, B. McNellis, S. Okun, C.E. Webb, V. Rohrbach, and I. Von Kohorn. 2012. Core principles & values of effective team-based health care. Discussion Paper, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC. www.iom.edu/tbc.

Roy C. Gumpel, MD, FACP

Private Practice

June 4, 2015

Comment

I am not sure whether nurses are the answer to the problem of primary care physician shortages, but for me a nurse at my side made my team look like a “performing team”, that patient was producer, actor and director.

I heard a 21 year old was brought for evaluation. I noticed he was going in and out of seizures.  He seemed to be unresponsive to painful stimuli and pupils reflected opiate use.

The experienced nurse at my side felt certain he was faking.  She would lift his head above his face and when it fell it missed his face. When the family entered the room his seizures increased.

Not wanting to miss anything in a 21 year old, I had him evaluated at a nearby referral center.  He was discharged a day lager with a diagnosis of malingering, but only after a spinal tap and a PET scan.

An Oscar for that patient and roses for the nurse.

PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

Shaw RJ, McDuffie JR, Hendrix CC, et al. Effects of Nurse-Managed Protocols in the Outpatient Management of Adults With Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:113–121. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M13-2567

Download citation file:

  • Ris (Zotero)
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • Medlars
  • ProCite
  • RefWorks
  • Reference Manager

© 2019

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(2):113-121.

DOI: 10.7326/M13-2567

54 Citations

See Also

Are Nurses an Answer to New Primary Care Needs?
Effects of Nurse-Managed Protocols
View MoreView Less

Related Articles

Helping Patients Take Responsibility for Their Own Health
Annals of Internal Medicine; 135 (1): 51-52
More Than a Case Manager
Annals of Internal Medicine; 129 (8): 654-656
STUDIES OF THE HYPERLIPEMIA IN DIABETES AND OTHER DISORDERS*
Annals of Internal Medicine; 41 (3): 546-552
Editors' Introduction: Annals Supplement From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program
Annals of Internal Medicine; 161 (10_Supplement): S1
View MoreView Less

Journal Club

Care coordination for patients with chronic conditions did not reduce hospitalizations or Medicare costs
Annals of Internal Medicine; 150 (12): JC6-14
Protocol-based nurse management of type 2 diabetes did not differ from usual GP care for HbA1c levels
Annals of Internal Medicine; 155 (6): JC3-7
Guideline: USPSTF recommends against menopausal estrogen for primary prevention of chronic conditions
Annals of Internal Medicine; 168 (6): JC26
Review: In older patients with chronic disease, transitional care reduces mortality and readmissions
Annals of Internal Medicine; 167 (6): JC32
View MoreView Less

Related Point of Care

Community-Acquired Pneumonia
Annals of Internal Medicine; 163 (7): ITC1
Community-Acquired Pneumonia
Annals of Internal Medicine; 151 (7): ITC4-1
View MoreView Less

Related Topics

Cardiology
Coronary Risk Factors
Diabetes
Dyslipidemia
Endocrine and Metabolism

Cardiology, Coronary Risk Factors, Diabetes, Dyslipidemia, Endocrine and Metabolism.

PubMed Articles

Prospective comparison of diffusion-weighted MR enterography and contrast enhanced CT enterography for the detection of ileocolonic crohn's disease.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019.
Development and testing of an evidence-based model of mentoring nursing students in clinical practice.
Nurse Educ Today 2019;
View More

Results provided by: PubMed

CME/MOC Activity Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
The Comments Feature Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
link to top

Content

  • Home
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives

Information For

  • Author Info
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Readers
  • Institutions / Libraries / Agencies
  • Advertisers

Services

  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Alerts
  • Current Issue RSS
  • Latest RSS
  • In the Clinic RSS
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Help
  • About Annals
  • About Mobile
  • Patient Information
  • Teaching Tools
  • Annals in the News
  • Share Your Feedback

Awards and Cover

  • Personae (Cover Photo)
  • Junior Investigator Awards
  • Poetry Prize

Other Resources

  • ACP Online
  • Career Connection
  • ACP Advocate Blog
  • ACP Journal Wise

Follow Annals On

  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. | Accept
×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
Annals of Internal Medicine
PURCHASE OPTIONS
Buy This Article|Subscribe
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×