Developments in Australian general practice 2000-2002: what did these contribute to a well functioning and comprehensive Primary Health Care System?

Gawaine Powell Davies, Wendy Hu, Julie McDonald, John Furler, Elizabeth Harris, Mark Harris
{"title":"Developments in Australian general practice 2000-2002: what did these contribute to a well functioning and comprehensive Primary Health Care System?","authors":"Gawaine Powell Davies, Wendy Hu, Julie McDonald, John Furler, Elizabeth Harris, Mark Harris","doi":"10.1186/1743-8462-3-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In recent years, national and state/territory governments have undertaken an increasing number of initiatives to strengthen general practice and improve its links with the rest of the primary health care sector. This paper reviews how far these initiatives were contributing to a well functioning and comprehensive primary health care system during the period 2000-2002, using a normative model of primary health care and data from a descriptive study to evaluate progress.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant number of programs, at both state/territory and national level. Most focused on individual care, particularly for chronic disease, rather than population health approaches. There was little evidence of integration across programs: each tended to be based in and focus on a single jurisdiction, and build capacity chiefly within the services funded through that jurisdiction. As a result, the overall effect was patchy, with similar difficulties being noted across all jurisdictions and little gain in overall system capacity for effective primary health care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Efforts to develop more effective primary health care need a more balanced approach to reform, with a better balance across the different elements of primary health care and greater integration across programs and jurisdictions. One way ahead is to form a single funding agency, as in the UK and New Zealand, and so remove the need to work across jurisdictions and manage their competing interests. A second, perhaps less politically challenging starting point, is to create an agreed framework for primary health care within which a collective vision for primary health care can be developed, based on population health needs, and the responsibilities of different sectors services can be negotiated. Either of these approaches would be assisted by a more systematic and comprehensive program of research and evaluation for primary health care.</p>","PeriodicalId":87170,"journal":{"name":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","volume":"3 ","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1379649/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-3-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In recent years, national and state/territory governments have undertaken an increasing number of initiatives to strengthen general practice and improve its links with the rest of the primary health care sector. This paper reviews how far these initiatives were contributing to a well functioning and comprehensive primary health care system during the period 2000-2002, using a normative model of primary health care and data from a descriptive study to evaluate progress.

Results: There was a significant number of programs, at both state/territory and national level. Most focused on individual care, particularly for chronic disease, rather than population health approaches. There was little evidence of integration across programs: each tended to be based in and focus on a single jurisdiction, and build capacity chiefly within the services funded through that jurisdiction. As a result, the overall effect was patchy, with similar difficulties being noted across all jurisdictions and little gain in overall system capacity for effective primary health care.

Conclusion: Efforts to develop more effective primary health care need a more balanced approach to reform, with a better balance across the different elements of primary health care and greater integration across programs and jurisdictions. One way ahead is to form a single funding agency, as in the UK and New Zealand, and so remove the need to work across jurisdictions and manage their competing interests. A second, perhaps less politically challenging starting point, is to create an agreed framework for primary health care within which a collective vision for primary health care can be developed, based on population health needs, and the responsibilities of different sectors services can be negotiated. Either of these approaches would be assisted by a more systematic and comprehensive program of research and evaluation for primary health care.

2000-2002 年澳大利亚全科实践的发展:这些发展对运作良好的综合初级保健系统有何贡献?
背景:近年来,国家和州/地区政府采取了越来越多的措施来加强全科医疗,并改善其与其他初级医疗保健部门的联系。本文回顾了在 2000-2002 年期间,这些举措在多大程度上促进了一个运作良好的综合性初级医疗保健系统的建立,并使用了一个初级医疗保健规范模型和一项描述性研究的数据来评估进展情况:结果:在州/地区和国家层面都有大量的计划。大多数计划侧重于个人护理,特别是慢性病护理,而不是人群健康方法。几乎没有证据表明各计划之间进行了整合:每个计划都倾向于以单一辖区为基础和重点,并主要在该辖区资助的服务范围内进行能力建设。因此,总体效果并不明显,所有辖区都遇到了类似的困难,有效初级卫生保健的整体系统能力几乎没有提高:结论:要努力发展更有效的初级医疗保健,就必须采取更加平衡的改革方法,更好地平衡初级医疗保健的不同要素,并加强各计划和辖区之间的整合。一个可行的办法是像英国和新西兰那样成立一个单一的资助机构,这样就不需要跨辖区工作,也不需要管理各辖区之间相互竞争的利益。第二个起点也许在政治上不那么具有挑战性,那就是为初级卫生保健建立一个商定的框架,在这个框架内,可以根据人口的健康需求制定初级卫生保健的集体愿景,并就不同部门服务的责任进行谈判。这两种方法中的任何一种都将得到一个更系统、更全面的初级卫生保健研究和评估计划的帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信