In the context of an (albeit semi-satirical) article in a medical journal, it's a legitimate question to ask and not at all 'dismissive'. The economics of a hea

In the context of an (albeit semi-satirical) article in a medical journal, it's a legitimate question to ask and not at all 'dismissive'. The economics of a healthcare system requires such things to be asked. From the perspective of a GP, they might find it troubling that, despite continual patient education efforts, patients persist in seeking GP consultations for symptoms of minor ailments rather than opting for a nurse (or even a chemist). Patients can usually be seen by nurses sooner and for longer consultations, with the ability to prescribe and triage for further diagnosis/consultation. My own idea for why this happens (in a UK context, at least) is that nursing's reputation for basic healthcare skills persists amongst the public, as well as a notion that nurses may be acting 'above their station' in diagnosing and treating patients. The popular idea of nursing as providing basic care and observation is something that tends to be done by healthcare assistants these days. The role of specialist nurses - including nurse practitioners - in recent times should allay such legitimate concerns, but it might be the case that they are encumbered with a low-visibility public presence or status. Another idea that occurs is that it seems to have been part of patient culture for patients to arrange appointments with a family GP when seeking assessment and treatment - a norm passed down through family generations? Changing it or introducing new norms within families' relationships with primary care providers may be a particularly tricky challenge to overcome.