Venning 2000.

Methods	Randomised trial
Participants	1316 patients (total group), all ages, 42% male 20 nurses Unknown number of doctors
Interventions	Intervention: patients allocated to nurse Control: patients allocated to doctor Detailed description of the intervention: Compared care given by general practitioners and nurse practitioners for patients requesting a same‐day appointment Supervision, oversight: unknown
Outcomes	Patient outcomes: Health status Satisfaction Compliance with follow‐up attendance Enablement Process of care: Examinations Resource utilisation: Length of consultation Return visits Prescriptions Investigations Use of other services ‐ hospital referral Direct costs
Notes	Country: UK Study period: 2 weeks Nurse role: first contact care for patients with urgent problems Nurse title: nurse practitioners Nurse educational background: EQF levels 5, 6, and 7 Nurse years of experience: The median length of time nurses had been qualified as nurse practitioners was 3 (range 1 to 5) years, and the median time as registered nurses was 22 (9 to 35) years. Each nurse practitioner had been seeing patients as first point of contact for at least 2 years. Nurse additional training: unknown
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The sequence process included a random component. "In each practice, experimental sessions were booked when both the nurse practitioner and a general practitioner had appointments available for patients who asked to be seen on the same day. Patients were eligible for entry to the study if they requested an appointment the same day and were able to come to the experimental session. If these conditions were satisfied, the receptionist then asked patients whether they would agree to be randomised to see either a[n] NP or a GP. A method of coded block randomisation was developed which meant that neither the receptionist nor the patient could determine the group to which a patient had been allocated at the time of booking. The coded blocks were generated from random number tables. The randomisation code was broken by one of the researchers at the start of each experimental session, at which point it became apparent which patient would see which practitioner. Randomization continued until a minimum of 60 patients in each practice had been allocated to the clinician groups".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Patients and investigators enrolling patients could not foresee assignment. "Method of coded block randomisation was developed which meant that neither the receptionist nor the patient could determine the group to which a patient had been allocated at the time of booking. The coded blocks were generated from random number tables. The randomisation code was broken by one of the researchers at the start of each experimental session, at which point it became apparent which patient would see which practitioner".
Baseline characteristics	Low risk	Baseline characteristics were reported and were similar for both groups.
Baseline outcome measurement	Unclear risk	No baseline outcome measurement was performed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	GPs and NPs were not blinded. Patients were not blinded. It is unclear whether the outcome was influenced by lack of blinding of patients and care providers.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Follow‐up of patients < 80%
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	The protocol was not available.
Contamination	Unclear risk	No information Allocation on patient level
Bias due to lack of power	Unclear risk	No power calculation performed