Do the experiences of patients of state-employed family physicians and concessionaires in Slovenia differ?

Q4 Medicine
D. Pavlič, Maja Sever, Z. Klemenc-Ketiš, I. Švab, J. Kersnik, W. Boerma
{"title":"Do the experiences of patients of state-employed family physicians and concessionaires in Slovenia differ?","authors":"D. Pavlič, Maja Sever, Z. Klemenc-Ketiš, I. Švab, J. Kersnik, W. Boerma","doi":"10.6016/ZDRAVVESTN.1108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Family practice in Slovenia is provided by state-employed family physicians as well as concessionaires . However, both work under a contract with the National Health Insurance Institute . This study focuses on comparing patients’ experiences with Slovenian concessionaires and state- employed physicians . Methods: We performed analyses using survey data from a cross-sectional study on patient experiences, which took place from September 2011 to April 2012 as a part of the international QUALICOPC study. The Slovenian branch of this study included 1,962 patients visiting family practices. Patients were classified into two groups regarding the registered status of their family physician. They completed the questionnaires immediately after visiting their family physicians. Data used in the analyses included 76 variables: 18 socio- economic and 58 variables linked to the patient's experience. Results: The analyses showed few differences between concessionaires and state-employed family physicians. I n comparison to patients of state-employed family physicians, patients of concessionaires were less likely to make an appointment for a visit (19.8% vs. 29.2%), were generally more frequent visitors (43.7% vs. 50.7%), and more often felt that opening hours are too restricted (25.7 % vs. 31.9%). Patients of concessionaires believed more often that in general, doctors can be trusted (40.1% vs.47.1 %). A smaller percentage of patients of concessionaires felt that their physician had the capacity to deal with personal problems as well as provide medical care (61.9% vs. 54.7%). Conclusions: There are few differences in patients’ experiences of state -employed family physicians and concessionaires. Slovenian patients have a generally positive experience with family practice services regardless of the family physicians ’ status. Plans for organizational change of the health sector should include patients’ perceptions of services.","PeriodicalId":49350,"journal":{"name":"Zdravniski Vestnik-Slovenian Medical Journal","volume":"6 1","pages":"670-678"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zdravniski Vestnik-Slovenian Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6016/ZDRAVVESTN.1108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Family practice in Slovenia is provided by state-employed family physicians as well as concessionaires . However, both work under a contract with the National Health Insurance Institute . This study focuses on comparing patients’ experiences with Slovenian concessionaires and state- employed physicians . Methods: We performed analyses using survey data from a cross-sectional study on patient experiences, which took place from September 2011 to April 2012 as a part of the international QUALICOPC study. The Slovenian branch of this study included 1,962 patients visiting family practices. Patients were classified into two groups regarding the registered status of their family physician. They completed the questionnaires immediately after visiting their family physicians. Data used in the analyses included 76 variables: 18 socio- economic and 58 variables linked to the patient's experience. Results: The analyses showed few differences between concessionaires and state-employed family physicians. I n comparison to patients of state-employed family physicians, patients of concessionaires were less likely to make an appointment for a visit (19.8% vs. 29.2%), were generally more frequent visitors (43.7% vs. 50.7%), and more often felt that opening hours are too restricted (25.7 % vs. 31.9%). Patients of concessionaires believed more often that in general, doctors can be trusted (40.1% vs.47.1 %). A smaller percentage of patients of concessionaires felt that their physician had the capacity to deal with personal problems as well as provide medical care (61.9% vs. 54.7%). Conclusions: There are few differences in patients’ experiences of state -employed family physicians and concessionaires. Slovenian patients have a generally positive experience with family practice services regardless of the family physicians ’ status. Plans for organizational change of the health sector should include patients’ perceptions of services.
斯洛文尼亚国家雇用的家庭医生和特许医生的病人的经历不同吗?
背景:斯洛文尼亚的家庭执业是由国家雇用的家庭医生以及特许经营者提供的。不过,两者都是根据与国家健康保险研究所签订的合同工作的。本研究的重点是比较患者与斯洛文尼亚特许医生和国家雇用的医生的经验。方法:我们使用患者经历横断面研究的调查数据进行分析,该研究于2011年9月至2012年4月进行,是国际QUALICOPC研究的一部分。该研究的斯洛文尼亚分支包括1962名访问家庭诊所的患者。根据家庭医生的注册身份将患者分为两组。他们在拜访完家庭医生后立即完成了调查问卷。分析中使用的数据包括76个变量:18个社会经济变量和58个与患者经历相关的变量。结果:分析显示特许经营家庭医生与国家雇用家庭医生之间的差异不大。与公立家庭医生的患者相比,特许医生的患者不太可能预约就诊(19.8%对29.2%),通常更频繁地就诊(43.7%对50.7%),并且更经常感到开放时间太有限(25.7%对31.9%)。一般而言,患者认为医生值得信任的比例(40.1%比47.1%)高于患者认为医生值得信任的比例。较小比例的患者认为他们的医生有能力处理个人问题并提供医疗服务(61.9%对54.7%)。结论:公立家庭医生与特许医生的患者体验差异不大。无论家庭医生的身份如何,斯洛文尼亚患者对家庭实践服务的总体体验都是积极的。卫生部门的组织变革计划应包括病人对服务的看法。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信