Skill mix, doctors and nurses: substitution or diversification?

Lindsey Banham, Jim Connelly
{"title":"Skill mix, doctors and nurses: substitution or diversification?","authors":"Lindsey Banham,&nbsp;Jim Connelly","doi":"10.1108/02689230210445086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This commentary surveys the current arguments for and against modifying the work of doctors and nurses by placing the main viewpoints - substitution and diversification - within the policy background, particularly that of the UK. We discuss the forces for modification: cost effectiveness, professional development, quality improvement and pragmatic management and how each provides a stand-point for evaluation of the issues. Policy makers and managers in the health sector should be aware of the rather fragmented evidence base for doctor-nurse substitution and should consider skill mix changes only when they are clear about: purpose, evidence base, acceptable risks, accountability and quality assurance. Doctor-nurse substitution is not necessarily cost effective, nor is it unfailingly a gain in nurse professionalism or in quality of care. Of the management perspectives available - advocacy, skepticism or pragmatism - the current evidence and policy base favours pragmatism over evaluations of the rightness or wrongness of a general policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":80033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of management in medicine","volume":"16 4-5","pages":"259-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/02689230210445086","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of management in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/02689230210445086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

This commentary surveys the current arguments for and against modifying the work of doctors and nurses by placing the main viewpoints - substitution and diversification - within the policy background, particularly that of the UK. We discuss the forces for modification: cost effectiveness, professional development, quality improvement and pragmatic management and how each provides a stand-point for evaluation of the issues. Policy makers and managers in the health sector should be aware of the rather fragmented evidence base for doctor-nurse substitution and should consider skill mix changes only when they are clear about: purpose, evidence base, acceptable risks, accountability and quality assurance. Doctor-nurse substitution is not necessarily cost effective, nor is it unfailingly a gain in nurse professionalism or in quality of care. Of the management perspectives available - advocacy, skepticism or pragmatism - the current evidence and policy base favours pragmatism over evaluations of the rightness or wrongness of a general policy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
技能组合,医生和护士:替代还是多样化?
这篇评论调查了当前支持和反对修改医生和护士的工作,将主要观点-替代和多样化-在政策背景下,特别是在英国。我们讨论了修改的力量:成本效益、专业发展、质量改进和务实管理,以及每一种力量如何为评估问题提供一个立场。卫生部门的决策者和管理者应该意识到,医生护士替代的证据基础相当分散,只有在明确了目的、证据基础、可接受的风险、问责制和质量保证后,才应该考虑技能组合的改变。医生-护士替代不一定具有成本效益,也不一定能提高护士的专业水平或护理质量。在现有的管理观点中-倡导、怀疑或实用主义-目前的证据和政策基础倾向于实用主义,而不是对一般政策的正确或错误进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Quality in health care Patient perceptions of service quality Multi‐professional Learning for Nurses: Breaking the Boundaries Cross-sector working: speech and language therapists in education. Managing performance and performance management: information strategy and service user involvement.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1