• 농촌의학ㆍ지역보건
• /
• 제42권1호
• /
• pp.24-35
• /
• 2017

이 연구의 목적은 한국형 일차의료 평가 도구(KPCAT)를 이용하여 한 농촌 지역 보건소의 일차의료의 질을 평가하는 것이다. 또 이 연구에서는 KPCAT 적용 및 결과 해석과 관계된 몇 가지 방법론적 이슈를 검토하였다. 농촌 보건소 진료 의사에게 4회 이상 진료받은 환자 79명이 KPCAT 설문에 응답하였다. 응답자의 특성을 빈도와 백분율, 중앙값과 사분위 범위, 평균과 표준 편차로 제시하였다. 일차의료의 질은 KPCAT 총점과 영역별 점수의 중앙값과 사분위 범위로 제시하였고 최댓값과 최솟값, 기대 점수와 함께 방사형 도표로 제시하였다. KPCAT 문항별 점수와 중앙값과 사분위 범위, 기대 점수 이상 응답자 비율, 잘 모름 응답자 비율을 제시하였다. 연구 대상 농촌 지역 보건소 일차의료 질의 중앙값과 사분위 범위는 각각 45점, 16점이었다. KPCAT 영역별 점수 중앙값이 기대 점수에 이른 영역은 최초 접촉 하나였다. KPCAT 문항별 점수가 기대 점수 이상인 응답자 비율이 50% 미만인 문항은 포괄성 4문항 중 2개, 조정 기능 3문항 전부, 전인적 의료 5문항 중 2개, 가족 및 지역 사회 지향성 4문항 전부였다. 잘 모름 응답의 처리 방침 개선, 잘 모름 응답률이 높은 문항의 타당성 검토, 응답 척도의 내용과 점수의 일치 등이 방법론적 개선 과제였다. 농촌 지역 보건소 일차의료의 질은 개선할 여지가 많았다. 특히 조정 기능과 가족 및 지역 사회 지향성 영역의 개선 필요성이 두드러졌다. KPCAT의 방법론적 개선을 통하여 타당하고 신뢰성 있는 일차의료 평가가 이루어지기를 기대한다.

• 대한예방한의학회지
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.69-78
• /
• 2013

Objectives : Health cooperative movement is of increasing concern among medical consumers and professionals in Korea. Most health cooperative clinics provide Western Medicine and Korean Medicine(KM) to patients. This study aimed to evaluate the primary care level of health cooperative KM clinics and compare it with local KM clinics in Korea. Methods : Face to face survey was performed at the 3 health cooperative KM clinics and 5 local KM clinics with the Korean Primary Care Assessment Tool (KPCAT). The KPCAT consists of 5 domains (21 items): first contact (5), coordination function (3), comprehensiveness (4), family/community orientation (4), and personalized care (5). Subjects were patients or guardians who had visited KM clinics five times or more during the last 3 months. We compared primary care scores of each domain between health cooperative KM clinics and local KM clinics. Results : Data were collected from 200 respondents (100 patients from health cooperative KM clinics and 100 local KM clinics). Total average scores of the KPCAT for health cooperative clinics and local KM clinics were $81.1{\pm}12.0$ and $75.4{\pm}9.5$, respectively. Among primary care domains, personalized care was the highest ($89.2{\pm}12.0$, $89.6{\pm}8.4$, respectively), and comprehensiveness function was the lowest ($68.5{\pm}22.5$, $54.5{\pm}22.0$, respectively). Significant differences between two groups were noted in comprehensiveness function (68.5 vs. 54.5, P=0.000), family-community orientation (79.5 vs. 73.0, P=0.004), first contact(89.2 vs 84.0, p=0.001) and coordination function(74.0 vs 68.7, p=0.025). Conclusions : Based on the patients assessment, health cooperative KM clinics provide more primary care-oriented services than local KM clinics. This means that health cooperative clinic can be one of alternatives to strengthen the primary health care in Korea. Future researches are recommended to measure patients satisfaction and treatment effectiveness in the health cooperative clinics.

• 한국의료질향상학회지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.16-25
• /
• 2019

Purpose:The healthcare system of South Korea is at the extreme of the dispersed system. Few regulations limit patients from directly visiting higher-level medical institutions for primary care sensitive conditions. As a result, similar to local clinics, general and tertiary teaching hospitals also provide diverse primary care services. Our study aimed to examine the general public's perceptions of their primary care performance. Methods: Face-to-face surveys were conducted with 1000 adults who were living in South Korea with the aid of a questionnaire that included the Korean Primary Care Assessment Tool (KPCAT). The KPCAT consists of five domains, which are the main indicators of primary care performance: first contact, comprehensiveness, coordination, personalized care, and family/community orientation. One-way analysis of variance and post hoc tests were used to compare the KPCAT scores across the three types of medical institutions. Results: Domain-wise analyses revealed two different patterns. With regard to first contact and its subdomains, the highest and lowest scores emerged for local clinics and tertiary teaching hospitals, respectively. However, the other four domain scores were significantly lower for local clinics than for the other two types of medical institutions. Conclusions: Local clinics were perceived to be medical institutions that are responsible for providing primary care. However, the general public perceived only one domain of their primary care to be superior to that of the other two types of medical institutions: first contact. National efforts should be taken to strengthen their other four domains of primary care by training their workforce and providing appropriate incentives.