You are here

Home » Content

Sürekli Bakım: Aile Hekimliği Uygulamasında Ne Yapıyoruz, Neler Yapmalıyız?

CONTINUITY OF CARE: THE CASE IN FAMILY PRACTICE IN TURKEY

Journal Name:

  • Türkiye Aile Hekimliği Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2003

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Continuity of care is one of the fundamental principles of family medicine. Continuity of care traditionally means care from one doctor over time and it may determine the degree to which a personal relationship between doctor and patient is allowed to develop. Seeing the same patients increases the doctor's job satisfaction in addition to patient satisfaction but requires personal commitment and high personal availability. Continuity of care may be declining with current trends in the organisational development of primary health care in some developed countries. Recently some reform efforts have been observed in the delivery of health services in our country. Some organisational changes in the health centres are neces¬sary to adopt the principles of family practice in the delivery of primary health care services. In this paper, I tried to review the troubles with continuity of care and to interpret the devel¬opments and practices in primary care of our health care sys¬tem in the light of general considerations about continuity of care. Although continuity of care is costly to deliver in the day-to-day service, personal doctoring is still an essential part of good family practice.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Sürekli bakım aile hekimliğinin temel ilkelerinden biridir. Sürekli bakım geleneksel olarak hastanın aynı hekimi görmesi anlamını taşır, hastayla hekim arasında kişisel bir ilişkinin gelişmesinde belirleyici olabilir. Bakımın sürekliliği, hizmetin kısa ve orta sürede ortaya çıkan birçok sonucunu olumlu etkilemekte ve özellikle hasta ve hekim memnuniyetini artırmaktadır. Bununla birlikte oldukça kişiselleşmiş bir bakım sunma çabası, aile hekiminin kişisel ve sosyal yaşamını zorlamaktadır. Son zamanlarda, bazı gelişmiş ülkelerde, hekime ulaşılabildiği artırmak için, birinci basamak sağlık hizmetlerinin örgütlenmesinde yapılan değişiklikler bakımdaki sürekliliği azaltma eğilimindedir. Ülke¬mizde de son yıllarda sağlık hizmetlerinin sunumuyla ilgili re¬form girişimleri söz konusudur. Birinci basamak sağlık hizmeti sunumunda aile hekimliği uygulama ilkelerinin benimsenmesi sürecinde, sağlık ocaklarıyla ilgili bazı düzenlemeler yapılması gerekmektedir. Bu yazıda, sürekli bakımla ilgili gözlenen genel eğilimler çerçevesinde, ülkemizdeki aile hekimliği uygulaması için birinci basamakta yapılması gerekenler tartışılmaktadır. Sürekli bakım ve kişisel hekimlik, aile hekimi için kişisel ve sosyal maliyeti olmasına karşın hala iyi bir aile hekimliği uygulama¬sının vazgeçilmez bir parçasıdır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_116859_7_pp_122-130.pdf
  • 3
122-130
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Starfield B. Is primary care essential? The Lancet 1994; 344: 1129-33.
2. Freeman G, Hjortdahl P. What future for continuity of care in general practice? BMJ 1997; 314: 1870-3.
3. WHO and WONCA. Making medical practice and education more relevant to people's needs: The contribution of the family doctor. WHO-WONCA Conference, Ontario, Canada November 6-8, 1994; 7-15.
4. Improving Health Systems: The Contribution of Family Medicine. A Guidebook. A Collaborative project of the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Sin¬gapore, 2002; 30.
5. Starfield B. Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and Technology. New York, Oxford University Press, 1998; 143-68.
6. Fleming DM. Continuity of care: a concept revisited. Eur J Gen Pract
2000; 6: 140-5.
7. Kearley KE, Freeman GK, Heath A. An exploration of the value of the personal doctor-patient relationship in general practice. Br J Gen Pract
2001; 51: 712-8.
8. van Weel C. The discipline of general practice in Europe. European union of general practitioners reference book, p: 31-2. http://www.uemo.org/members/reference_book/positionofgp.pdf 05.07.2002 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
9. The European Definition of General Practice / Family Medicine. WONCA Europe 2002, WHO Europe Office, Barcelona, Spain, 2002; 6.
10. Baker R. Will the future GP remain a personal doctor? Br J Gen Pract 1997; 47: 831-4.
11. 224
Sayıl
ı Sağlık Hizmetlerinin Sosyalleştirilmesi Hakkında Kanun. Resmi Gazete, 12/1/1961 Sayı: 10705.
12.
Aksakoğl
u G. Kent sağlık ocağı. Toplum ve Hekim 1996; 11(71): 57-8.
13.
Fidane
r C. Birinci basamak sağlık hizmetleri için bir öneri: Modüler sağlık ocağı. Aile Hek Derg 1997; 1(2): 99-104.
14. Başak O, Saatçi E. The development of general practice in Turkey. Eur J Gen Pract 1998; 4(3): 126-9.
15.
Soye
r A. Bir araştırma nedeni ile "sağlık hizmetlerinin kullanımı" ve sağlık ocakları. Toplum ve Hekim 1998; 13(5): 362-3.
16. Sağlık Hizmetlerinin Yürütülmesi Hakkında Yönerge. Birinci Kısım, Birinci Bölüm: Amaç, Kapsam ve Tanımlar. s.3. http://www.sag- lik.gov.tr/extras/mevzuat/y_saglik_hizm_yur_yon.pdf 05.07.2002 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
17. Sağlık Hizmetlerinin Yürütülmesi Hakkında Yönerge. Birinci Kısım, İkinci Bölüm: Sağlık Hizmetlerinin Temel İlkeleri. s.4. http://www.sag- lik.gov.tr/extras/mevzuat/y_saglik_hizm_yur_yon.pdf 05.07.2002 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
18.
Bölg
e Tabanlı Hizmet Uygulaması Hakkında Genelge. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Temel Sağlık Hizmetleri G.M. 2001. http://www.sag-lik.gov.tr/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=78 05.07.2002 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
19. Guthrie B, Wyke S. Does continuity in general practice really matter?
BMJ2000; 321: 734-6.
20. Weiss LJ, Blustein J. Faithful patients: the effect of long-term physician-patient relationships on the costs and use of health care by older Americans. Am J Public Health 1996; 86: 1742-7.
21. Mainous AG III, Baker R, Love MM, Gray DP, Gill JM. Continuity of care and trust in one's physician: evidence from primary care in the United States and the United Kingdom. Fam Med 2001; 33(1): 22-7.
22. Mainous AG III, Gill JM. The importance of continuity of care in the likelihood of future hospitalisation: is site of care equivalent to a predominant clinician? Am J Public Health 1998; 88: 1539-41.
23. Christakis DA, Wright JA, Koepsell TD, Emerson S, Connell F. Is
greater continuity of care associated with less emergency department utilization? Pediatrics 1999; 103: 738-42.
24. Kao AC, Green DC, Zaslavsky AM, Koplan JP, Cleary PD. The
relationship between method of physician payment and patient trust.
JAMA 1998; 280: 1708-14.
25. McWhinney IR. Being a general practitioner: what it means. Eur J Gen
Pract 2000; 6: 135-9.
26. McWhinney IR. A Textbook of Family Medicine. 2. baskı. New York,
Oxford University Press, 1997; 18-20.
27. Vogt HB, Lindemann IC, Hearns VL. Teaching medical students about continuity of patient care. Acad Med 2000; 75: 58.
28. Steadman L, Field S, Rutter DR. Attendance at cancer screening in the wake of widespread adverse publicity surrounding test results. J Med Screen 1999; 6: 40-1.
29. McWhinney IR. Core values in a changing world. BMJ 1998; 316: 1807-9.
30. Hennen BK. Continuity of care in family practice: implications of continuity. J Fam Pract 1997; 3: 371-2.
31. Olesen F, Dickinson J, Hjortdahl P. General practice - time for a new definition. BMJ 2000; 320: 354-7.
32. McCormick J. Death of the personal doctor. Lancet 1996; 348: 667-8.
33. Hjorthdahl P. Continuity of care - going out of style? Br J Gen Pract
2001; 699-700.
34. Freeman GK, Richards SC. How much personal care in four group
practices? BMJ1990; 301: 1028-30.
Türkiye Aile Hekimliği Dergisi |
Turkish Journal of Family Practice | Cilt 7 | Sayı 3 | 2003 | 129
35. Hjorthdahl P, Laerum E. Continuity of care in general practice: effect
on patient satisfaction. BMJ1992; 304: 1287-90.
36. Freeman GK, Richards SC. Is personal continuity of care compatible with free choice of doctor? Patients' views on seeing the same doctor. Br J Gen Pract 1993; 43: 493-7.
37. Smith CH, Armstrong D. Comparison of criteria derived by government and patients for evaluating general practitioners services. BMJ 1989; 299:
494-6.
38. Blankfield RP, Kelly RB, Alemagno SA, King CM. Continuity of care in a family practice residency program: impact on physician satisfaction. J Fam Pract 1990; 31: 69-73.
39. Maessenear J, Hjorthdahl P, Starfield B. Fix what's wrong, not what's
right, with general practice in Britain. BMJ2000; 320: 1616-7.
40. Di Blasi Z ve ark. Influence of content effects on health outcomes: a sys¬tematic review. Lancet 2001; 357: 757-62.
41. Hjorthdahl P, Borcgrevink CF. Continuity of care: influence of general practitioners' knowledge about their patients on use of resources in consultations. BMJ 1991; 303: 1181-4.
42. Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, et al. Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey. BMJ 1999; 319: 738-44.
43. Baker R, Streatfield J. What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 654-6.
44. Baker R. Characteristics of general practitioners, practices and patients associated with satisfaction with consultations. Br J Gen Pract 1996; 46:
601-5.
45. Schers H, Webster S, van den Hoogen H, Avery A, Grol R, van den Bosch W. Continuity of care in general practice: a survey of patients' views. Br J Gen Pract 2002; 52: 459-62.
46. Continuity of care in changing health care systems. Report on a WHO Working Group. Cittadella, Italy, 11-14 December 1991.
47. Improving Health Systems: The Contribution of Family Medicine. A Guidebook. A Collaborative project of the World Organization of Family
Doctors (WONCA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Sin¬gapore, 2002; 139.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com