What are the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of endoscopy undertaken by nurses when compared with doctors? A Multi-Institution Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET)

J Williams,^1* I Russell,² D Durai,¹ W-Y Cheung,¹ A Farrin,³ K Bloor,⁴ S Coulton⁴ and G Richardson⁴

¹ University of Wales Swansea, UK
² University of Wales Bangor, UK
³ University of Leeds, UK
⁴ University of York, UK

* Corresponding author

Background

Nurses are increasingly undertaking both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Although uncontrolled studies suggest that nurse endoscopists are competent, and appreciated by patients, no pragmatic randomised trial of this change in role has yet been reported. If the role of nurses in endoscopy is to be developed, the implications for the workforce also need to be analysed.

Objectives

The objectives were to compare the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of doctors and nurses undertaking upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy by measuring:

acceptability to patients
quality of the process
outcome for, and value to, patients
resources consumed by the NHS and by patients
the relative cost-effectiveness of nurses and doctors.

If the results confirmed the acceptability of endoscopy by nurses, a further objective was to develop an economic model to predict the effect of an increase in these specialists on the labour market and also the training implications.

Design

The study was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Zelen’s randomisation before consent was used to minimise distortion of existing practice in the participating sites. An economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial, assessing the relative cost-effectiveness of nurses and doctors.

Setting

The study was undertaken in 23 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales. In six hospitals nurses undertook both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, yielding a total of 29 ‘centres’. The study was coordinated and managed from Swansea. Randomisation, data management and analysis were undertaken at York. Analysis was by intention-to-scope.

Participants

Sixty-seven doctors and 30 nurses took part in the study. Of 4964 potentially eligible patients, 4128 (83%) were randomised. Of these, 1888 (45%) were recruited to the study from 29 July 2002 to 30 June 2003.

Interventions

The procedures under study were diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy undertaken by nurses or doctors, with or without sedation, using the preparation, techniques and protocols of participating hospitals.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Questionnaire (GSRQ).

Secondary outcome measures were the EuroQol (EQ5D), Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ), the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), cost-effectiveness, immediate and delayed complications, quality of examination by blinded assessment of endoscopic video recordings, quality of procedure reports, patients’ preferences for operator 1 year after endoscopy, and new diagnoses at 1 year.

Results

The two groups were well matched at baseline for demographic and clinical characteristics. Significantly more patients changed from a planned endoscopy by a doctor to a nurse than vice versa, mainly for staffing reasons. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary or secondary outcome measures at 1 day, 1 month or 1 year after endoscopy, with the exception of patient satisfaction at 1 day, which favoured nurses. Nurses were significantly more thorough in the examination of stomach and oesophagus, but no different from doctors in the examination of duodenum and colon. There was no significant difference in costs to the NHS or patients, although doctors cost slightly more. Although quality of life measures showed improvement in some scores in the doctor group, this did not reach traditional levels of statistical significance. Even so, the economic evaluation, taking account of uncertainty in both costs and quality of life, suggests that endoscopy by doctors has an 87% chance of being more cost-effective than endoscopy by nurses.

Conclusions

There is no statistically significant difference between doctors and nurses in their clinical effectiveness in diagnostic endoscopy. However, nurses are significantly more thorough in the examination of oesophagus and stomach, and patients are significantly more satisfied after endoscopy by a nurse. Endoscopy by doctors is associated with better outcome at 1 year at higher cost, but overall is likely to be cost-effective.

Implications for healthcare

Nurses can undertake diagnostic endoscopy safely and effectively. However, doctors are more likely to be cost-effective. If decision-makers nevertheless choose to continue the current trend towards diagnostic endoscopy undertaken by nurses rather than doctors, this has implications for human resources, training and governance. We estimate that two nurse endoscopists will be needed per endoscopy unit.

Recommendations for research

The following are indicated for areas of future, further research:

evaluation of the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of nurses undertaking full colonoscopy, therapeutic endoscopy and oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy in other settings
monitoring the cost-effectiveness of nurse endoscopists as they become more experienced
assessment of the effect of increasing the number of nurse endoscopists on waiting times for patients
evaluation of the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic endoscopy for all current indications
assessment of the career implications and opportunities for nurses who become trained endoscopists.

Publication

Williams J, Russell I, Durai D, Cheung W-Y, Farrin A, Bloor K, et al. What are the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of endoscopy undertaken by nurses when compared with doctors? A Multi-Institution Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET). Health Technol Assess 2006;10(40).

NHS R&D HTA Programme

The research findings from the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme directly influence key decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC) who rely on HTA outputs to help raise standards of care. HTA findings also help to improve the quality of the service in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the ‘National Knowledge Service’ that is being developed to improve the evidence of clinical practice throughout the NHS.

The HTA Programme was set up in 1993. Its role is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. ‘Health technologies’ are broadly defined to include all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care, rather than settings of care.

The HTA Programme commissions research only on topics where it has identified key gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. Suggestions for topics are actively sought from people working in the NHS, the public, service-users groups and professional bodies such as Royal Colleges and NHS Trusts.

Research suggestions are carefully considered by panels of independent experts (including service users) whose advice results in a ranked list of recommended research priorities. The HTA Programme then commissions the research team best suited to undertake the work, in the manner most appropriate to find the relevant answers. Some projects may take only months, others need several years to answer the research questions adequately. They may involve synthesising existing evidence or conducting a trial to produce new evidence where none currently exists.

Additionally, through its Technology Assessment Report (TAR) call-off contract, the HTA Programme is able to commission bespoke reports, principally for NICE, but also for other policy customers, such as a National Clinical Director. TARs bring together evidence on key aspects of the use of specific technologies and usually have to be completed within a short time period.

Criteria for inclusion in the HTA monograph series

Reports are published in the HTA monograph series if (1) they have resulted from work commissioned for the HTA Programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors.

Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed ‘systematic’ when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

The research reported in this monograph was commissioned by the HTA Programme as project number 97/37/09. The contractual start date was in September 2001. The draft report began editorial review in May 2005 and was accepted for publication in February 2006. As the funder, by devising a commissioning brief, the HTA Programme specified the research question and study design. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA Programme or the Department of Health.

Editor-in-Chief: Professor Tom Walley
Series Editors: Dr Aileen Clarke, Dr Peter Davidson, Dr Chris Hyde, Dr John Powell, Dr Rob Riemsma and Dr Ken Stein
Managing Editors: Sally Bailey and Sarah Llewellyn Lloyd

HTA Home Page | Details page for this publication | Publications listing | Publications search