Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: an international comparison.
Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: an international comparison.
复制标题
欧洲患者评估全科医疗护理：国际比较。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2000
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Szecsenyi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Grol;M. Wensing;J. Mainz;H. Jung;P. Ferreira;H. Hearnshaw;P. Hjortdahl;F. Olesen;Shmuel Reis;M. Ribacke;J. Szecsenyi
背景
患者的评估可用于改善医疗保健和比较不同卫生系统的一般做法。
目的
为了确定一般的做法，通常是积极评价的患者和比较在不同的欧洲国家的患者的意见，实际提供的护理方面。
方法
向10个欧洲国家的患者分发了一份经过国际验证的问卷，并由患者填写。每个国家36个实践的分层样本，每个国家至少1080例患者，包括在内。使用了一组23个经过验证的问题，对不同方面的护理进行评估，以及年龄，性别，整体健康状况和访问GP的频率。
结果
患者样本包括来自10个不同国家的17，391例患者;平均应答率为79%（范围= 67%至89%）。一般来说，病人访问他们的全科医生（GP）是非常积极的护理提供。对于选定的23个护理方面中的大多数方面，超过80%的人认为护理是好的或优秀的;特别是，对记录保密、全科医生倾听患者、咨询时间以及紧急问题时的快速服务得到了积极评价。患者对护理的组织方面相对消极。不同国家的评价大体相似，但也有一些有趣的差异;例如，在收费服务的卫生系统中，服务和组织方面的评价更为积极。
结论
欧洲患者对全科医疗持积极态度，但要求一些国家改善实践管理。需要进行更多的研究，以研究具有不同卫生系统的国家之间在期望和评价方面的差异这一复杂领域。
BACKGROUND
Patients' evaluations can be used to improve health care and compare general practice in different health systems.
AIM
To identify aspects of general practice that are generally evaluated positively by patients and to compare opinions of patients in different European countries on actual care provision.
METHOD
An internationally-validated questionnaire was distributed to and completed by patients in 10 European countries. A stratified sample of 36 practices per country, with at least 1080 patients per country, was included. A set of 23 validated questions on evaluations of different aspects of care was used, as well as questions on age, sex, overall health status, and frequency of visiting the GP.
RESULTS
The patient sample included 17,391 patients in 10 different countries; the average response rate was 79% (range = 67% to 89%). In general, patients visiting their general practitioner (GP) were very positive about the care provided. For most of the 23 selected aspects of care more than 80% viewed care as good or excellent; in particular, keeping records confidential, GP listening to patients, time during consultations, and quick services in case of urgent problems were evaluated positively. Patients were relatively negative about organisational aspects of care. The evaluations in different countries were largely similar, with some interesting differences; for instance, service and organisational aspects were evaluated more positively in fee-for-service health systems.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients in Europe are positive about general practice but improvements in practice management in some countries are requested. More research is needed to study the complex field of differences in expectations and evaluations between countries with different health systems.