PubMed · 11955579
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D K Dobie, T Worthington, M Faroqui, T S J Elliott. 2002-04-06. Avoiding the point.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08245-4
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This paper discusses the reasons for skill mix among health workers being important for health systems. It examines the evidence base (identifying its limitations), summarizes the main findings from a literature review, and highlights the evidence on skill mix that is available to inform health system managers, health professionals, health policy-makers and other stakeholders. Many published studies are merely descriptive accounts or have methodological weaknesses. With few exceptions, the published analytical studies were undertaken in the USA, and the findings may not be relevant to other health systems. The results from even the most rigorous of studies cannot necessarily be applied to a different setting. This reflects the basis on which skill mix should be examined--identifying the care needs of a specific patient population and using these to determine the required skills of staff. It is therefore not possible to prescribe in detail a "universal" ideal mix of health personnel. With these limitations in mind, the paper examines two main areas in which investigating current evidence can make a significant contribution to a better understanding of skill mix. For the mix of nursing staff, the evidence suggests that increased use of less qualified staff will not be effective in all situations, although in some cases increased use of care assistants has led to greater organizational effectiveness. Evidence on the doctor-nurse overlap indicates that there is unrealized scope in many systems for extending the use of nursing staff. The effectiveness of different skill mixes across other groups of health workers and professions, and the associated issue of developing new roles remain relatively unexplored.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
We evaluated breast cancer mortality through 1997 among 69 525 female radiologic technologists who were certified in the United States from 1926 through 1982 and who responded to our questionnaire. Risk of breast cancer mortality was examined according to work history and practices and was adjusted for known risk factors. Breast cancer mortality risk was highest among women who were first employed as radiologic technologists prior to 1940 (relative risk [RR] = 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22 to 7.00) compared with risk of those first employed in 1960 or later and declined with more recent calendar year of first employment (P for trend =.002). Breast cancer mortality risk increased with increasing number of years of employment as a technologist prior to 1950 (P for trend =.018). However, risk was not associated with the total number of years a woman worked as a technologist. Technologists who first performed fluoroscopy (RR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.02 to 3.11) and multifilm procedures (RR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.04 to 3.34) before 1950 had statistically significantly elevated risks compared with technologists who first performed these procedures in 1960 or later. The high risks of breast cancer mortality for women exposed to occupational radiation prior to 1950 and the subsequent decline in risk are consistent with the dramatic reduction in recommended radiation exposure limits over time.