Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Does the “Office Nurse” Level of Training Matter in the Family Medicine Office?

Rodney A. Erickson, Richard A. Erickson, Paul V. Targonski, Stephen B. Cox, James R. Deming and James W. Mold
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2012, 25 (6) 854-861; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2012.06.110138
Rodney A. Erickson
From Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, WI (RAE, JRD); the Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX (RAE, SBC); the Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (PVT); and the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Okalahoma City (JWM).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard A. Erickson
From Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, WI (RAE, JRD); the Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX (RAE, SBC); the Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (PVT); and the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Okalahoma City (JWM).
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul V. Targonski
From Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, WI (RAE, JRD); the Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX (RAE, SBC); the Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (PVT); and the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Okalahoma City (JWM).
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen B. Cox
From Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, WI (RAE, JRD); the Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX (RAE, SBC); the Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (PVT); and the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Okalahoma City (JWM).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James R. Deming
From Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, WI (RAE, JRD); the Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX (RAE, SBC); the Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (PVT); and the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Okalahoma City (JWM).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James W. Mold
From Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, WI (RAE, JRD); the Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX (RAE, SBC); the Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (PVT); and the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Okalahoma City (JWM).
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 1.

    Diabetes scores of dyads by nurse type. RN, registered nurse; LPN, licensed practical nurse; MA, medical assistant.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. Description of Practice by Location, Inclusion of Obstetrics, and Tenure (N = 55)
    Practice VariableClinician TypeClinical Associate Type
    PhysicianAssociate ProviderRegistered NurseLicensed Practical NurseMedical Assistant
    Total43 (78.2%)12 (11.8%)8 (14.5%)24 (43.6%)23 (41.8%)
    Nonrural (n = 24)20 (36.4%)4 (63.6%)7 (12.7%)12 (21.5%)5 (9.1%)
    Rural (n = 31)23 (41.8%)8 (14.5%)*1 (1.85)12 (21.8%)18 (32.7%)†
    Obstetrics (n = 20)20 (36.4%)(15 rural)0‡1 (1.85%)(0 rural)12 (21.5%)(8 rural)7 (12.5%)§(7 rural)
    No obstetrics (n = 35)23 (41.8%)12 (21.8%)7 (12.7%)12 (21.5%)16 (29.1%)
    Tenure, mean years ± standard deviation¶10.54 ± 1.0910.64 ± 2.316.63 ± 1.716.57 ± 1.203.29 ± 0.48
    • Values provided as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

    • ↵* Clinician type by rural versus nonrural (P = .416).

    • ↵† CA type by rural versus nonrural (P = .0038).

    • ↵‡ Among family medicine clinicians, only physicians do obstetrics.

    • ↵§ Clinical associate type by obstetrics versus no obstetrics (P = .120).

    • ↵¶ Tenure for physicians was years of practice within the system. Tenure for clinical associates was years paired with clinician. Tenure was not significant by clinician type or for clinical associate type (P = .0525).

    • View popup
    Table 2. Diabetic Performance Metrics*
    GroupPatients per Group (n)Achieving All 5 Metrics† (%)Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)P
    Total258418.5
    Clinical associate type
        LPN110719.31.00<.001
        MA105914.70.60 (0.44–0.81)
        RN41827.81.37 (1.01–1.84)
    Clinician type
        AP19915.11.00.022
        MD/DO238518.82.23 (1.23–4.41)
    Site
        Nonrural123022.21.00.78
        Rural135415.11.14 (0.82–1.57)
    Inclusion of obstetrics
        Not Included169720.31.00.011
        Included88715.10.69 (0.51–0.92)
    • ↵* Performance of diabetes care is measured by the percent of patients who meet all 5 criteria of the Minnesota Community Measures: tobacco nonuse, systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg and diastolic <80 mmHg, aspirin use if indicated, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL, and glycosylated hemoglobin <7.0%.

    • ↵† Percents are unadjusted.

    • AP, associate provider; LPN, licensed practical nurse; MA, medical assistant; RN, registered nurse.

    • View popup
    Table 3. Patient Satisfaction Scores
    GroupResponses (n)Positive Responses* (%)Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)P
    Associate type
        LPN921095.51.00<.001
        MA950994.60.65 (0.53–0.80)
        RN373596.81.14 (0.88–1.48)
    Provider type
        AP424493.21.00<.001
        MD/DO1785095.71.75 (1.41–2.17)
    Site
        Nonrural1035596.61.00.0068
        Rural1172994.10.65 (0.53–0.81)
    Inclusion of obstetrics
        Not included1425494.91.00<.001
        Included781096.01.56 (1.27–1.93)
    • ↵* Percent positive responses are those that rated the care they received as “good” or “very good” and negative responses would be those rating their care as “fair,” “poor,” or “very poor.”

    • AP, associate provider; LPN, licensed practical nurse; MA, medical assistant; RN, registered nurse.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 25 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 25, Issue 6
November-December 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Does the “Office Nurse” Level of Training Matter in the Family Medicine Office?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 10 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Does the “Office Nurse” Level of Training Matter in the Family Medicine Office?
Rodney A. Erickson, Richard A. Erickson, Paul V. Targonski, Stephen B. Cox, James R. Deming, James W. Mold
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2012, 25 (6) 854-861; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2012.06.110138

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Does the “Office Nurse” Level of Training Matter in the Family Medicine Office?
Rodney A. Erickson, Richard A. Erickson, Paul V. Targonski, Stephen B. Cox, James R. Deming, James W. Mold
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2012, 25 (6) 854-861; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2012.06.110138
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Correction to “Does the ‘Office Nurse’ Level of Training Matter in the Family Medicine Office?”
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Correction to "Does the 'Office Nurse' Level of Training Matter in the Family Medicine Office?"
  • Prostate Cancer Decision-Making, Health Services, and the Family Physician Workforce
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
  • A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Nursing
  • Patient Care Team
  • Performance
  • Workload

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire