ArticleFamily medicine and community health2025
Are nurse-led patient consultations acceptable for the general practitioners and practice nurses in Germany? Results from a cross-sectional survey in two federal states.
Article in Family medicine and community health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDemographic changes, increasing prevalence of chronically ill and multimorbid patients and the ongoing shortage of general practitioners (GPs) collectively present significant challenges for European general practice. Task delegation from GP to practice nurse (PN)-led patient consultations could be a potential solution to tackle those challenges.Therefore, this study aimed to examine the attitudes of GPs and PNs towards PN-led consultations in general and for specific conditions.
designCross-sectional survey using a self-developed, pretested questionnaire, conducted between September 2023 and November 2024. The questionnaire assessed attitudes towards PN-led consultations, conditions within PN-led consultations, possible benefits and concerns regarding PN-led consultations, sociodemographic characteristics and characteristics on GP offices (GPOs). We performed descriptive statistics, univariable and multivariable regression analyses using SPSS V.27.
settingGPOs located in the German federal states of Saxony-Anhalt and Saxony. PARTICIPANT: From 2071 contacted GPOs, 437 GPs and 339 PNs participated (GP response rate: 21.1%).
resultsThe majority of GPs (61.7%) and PNs (61.2%) were open towards PN-led consultations. In multivariable analysis, GPs showed greater openness if they had prior positive delegation experiences (OR=5.88, 95% CI (3.01 to 11.48)) or already delegated special tasks (OR= 5.34, 95% CI (2.29 to 12.46)). GPs were less open if they worked in urban GPOs (OR=0.44, 95% CI (0.22 to 0.88)) or owned a single GPO (OR=0.41, 95% CI (0.20 to 0.83)). In multivariable analysis, PNs were more open towards PN-led consultations if they had prior positive delegation experiences (OR=3.03, 95% CI (1.12 to 8.18)) and advanced PN training (OR=3.50, 95% CI (1.44; 8.51)).The three most accepted conditions by GPs and PNs for PN-led consultations were chronic wounds, diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension.
conclusionOur findings demonstrate broad openness among both GPs and PNs towards PN-led consultations in German GPOs in general, and for various acute and chronic conditions. PN-led consultations are already partially practised. The results indicate considerable potential for further delegation beyond current national agreements.Future pilot studies should further develop PN roles and provide evidence of feasibility and non-inferiority of PN-led consultations compared to GP-led consultations. Conditions and participant characteristics investigated may serve as a foundation for study design and participant recruitment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.