Nurse practitioner management of acute in-hours home visit or assessment requests: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: GPs often perceive home-visit requests as a time-consuming aspect of general practice. The new general medical services contract provides for practices to be relieved of responsibility for home-visits, although there is no model for the transfer of care. One such model could be to employ nurse practitioners to manage such requests. Nurse practitioners can effectively substitute for GPs in managing same-day in-hours emergency care in the surgery, but their role in managing all such requests, including those requiring home visits, has not been assessed. AIM: To explore the feasibility and clinical management outcomes of nurse practitioner management of same-day care requests, including those requiring home visits, to inform a proposed randomised controlled trial. DESIGN OF STUDY: Non-randomised comparative trial. SETTING: One large general practice (14 600 patients) in south London. METHOD: Nurse practitioner assessment and management of all same-day care requests for 2 days per week was compared with normal GP management on another 2 days, over a 6-month period. Clinical management outcome data were collected from patient records and from data-collection forms completed by a nurse practitioner and GPs. Patient and staff satisfaction was assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS: The nurse practitioner was more likely than GPs to assess patients in person, less likely to give advice alone, and more likely to issue a prescription. There was no significant difference between the nurse practitioner and GPs regarding any other clinical management outcomes or patient satisfaction; however, the response rate of the patient satisfaction questionnaire in this pilot study was poor. CONCLUSION: Nurse practitioner management of acute in-hours care requests, including home visits, appears feasible in practice and merits further assessment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".