Performance State and Improvement Countermeasure of Primary Health Care Posts (보건진료소(保健診療所)와 업무실태(業務實態)와 개선방안(改善方案))
-
- Journal of agricultural medicine and community health
- /
- v.25 no.2
- /
- pp.353-377
- /
- 2000
This study was performed to investigate the performance state and improvement countermeasure of Primary Health care Posts(PHPs). The operation reports of PHPs(1996 330 PHPs, 1999 313 PHPs) located in Kyongsangbuk-Do and data collected by self-administered questionnaire survey of 280 community health practitioners(CHPs) were analyzed. The major results were as follows: Population per PHP in 1999 decreased in number compared with 1996. But population of the aged increased in number. The performance status of PHP in 1999 increased compared with 1996. A hundred forty one community health practitioners(50.4%) replied that the fiscal standing of PHP was good. Only 1.4% replied that the fiscal standing of PHP was difficult. For the degree of satisfaction in affairs, overall of community health practitioners felt proud. The degree of cooperation between PHP and public health institutions was high and the degree of cooperation of between PHP and private medical institutions was high. The degree of cooperation between PHP and Health Center was significantly different by age of CHP, the service period of CHP, and CHP's service period at present PHP. Over seventy percent of CHPs replied that they had cooperative relationship with operation council, village health workers, community organization. CHPs who drew up the paper on PHP's health activity plan were 96.4 % and only 11.4% of CHPs participated drawing up the report on the second community health plan. CHPs who grasped the blood pressure and smoking status of residents over 70% were 88.2%, 63.9% respectively and the grasp rate of blood pressure fur residents were significantly different according to age and educational level of CHP. CHPs received job education in addition continuous job education arid participated on research program in last 3 years were 27.5%, respectively. CHPs performed the return health program for residents in last 3years were 65.4%. Over 95% of CHPs replied that PHPs might be necessary and 53.9% of CHPs replied that the role of PHPs should be increased. CHPS indicated that major reasons of FHPs lockout were lack of understanding for PHP and administrative convenience, CHPs were officials in special government service governors intention of self-governing body. CHPs suggested number of population in health need such as the aged and patients with chronic disease, opinion of residents, population size, traffic situation and network in order as evaluation criteria for PHP and suggested results of health performance, degree of relationship with residents, results of medical examination anti treatment, ability for administration and affairs in order as evaluation criteria for CHP. CHPs replied that the important countermeasures for PHPs under standard were affairs improvement of PHPs and shifting of location to health weakness area in city. Over 50% of CHPs indicated that the most important thing for improvement of PHPs was affairs adjustment of CLIP. And CHPs suggested that health programs carried out in priority at PHP were management of diabetes mellitus and hypertention. home visiting health care, health care for the aged. The Affairs of BLIP should be adjusted to satisfy community health need and health programs such as management of diabetes mellitus and hypertention, home visiting health care, health care for the aged should be activated in order that PHPs become organization reflecting value system of primary health care.
The first and the second "Discussion Contest of Scientific Investigation" was evaluated in this study. This contest was a part of 'Korean Youth Science Festival' held in 1993 and 1994. The evaluation was based on the data collected from the middle school students of final teams, their teachers, a large number of middle school students and college students who were audience of the final competition. Questionnaires, interviews, reports of final teams, and video tape of final competition were used to collect data. The study focussed on three research questions. The first was about the preparation and the research process of students of final teams. The second was about the format and the proceeding of the Contest. The third was whether participating the Contest was useful experience for the students and the teachers of the final teams. The first area, the preparation and the research process of students, were investigated in three aspects. One was the level of cooperation, participation, support and the role of teachers. The second was the information search and experiment, and the third was the report writing. The students of the final teams from both years, had positive opinion about the cooperation, students' active involvement, and support from family and school. Students considered their teachers to be a guide or a counsellor, showing their level of active participation. On the other hand, the interview of 1993 participants showed that there were times that teachers took strong leading role. Therefore one can conclude that students took active roles most of the time while the room for improvement still exists. To search the information they need during the period of the preparation, student visited various places such as libraries, bookstores, universities, and research institutes. Their search was not limited to reading the books, although the books were primary source of information. Students also learned how to organize the information they found and considered leaning of organizing skill useful and fun. Variety of experiments was an important part of preparation and students had positive opinion about it. Understanding related theory was considered most difficult and important, while designing and building proper equipments was considered difficult but not important. This reflects the students' school experience where the equipments were all set in advance and students were asked to confirm the theories presented in the previous class hours. About the reports recording the research process, students recognize the importance and the necessity of the report but had difficulty in writing it. Their reports showed tendency to list everything they did without clear connection to the problem to be solved. Most of the reports did not record the references and some of them confused report writing with story telling. Therefore most of them need training in writing the reports. It is also desirable to describe the process of student learning when theory or mathematics that are beyond the level of middle school curriculum were used because it is part of their investigation. The second area of evaluation was about the format and the proceeding of the Contest, the problems given to students, and the process of student discussion. The format of the Contests, which consisted of four parts, presentation, refutation, debate and review, received good evaluation from students because it made students think more and gave more difficult time but was meaningful and helped to remember longer time according to students. On the other hand, students said the time given to each part of the contest was too short. The problems given to students were short and open ended to stimulate students' imagination and to offer various possible routes to the solution. This type of problem was very unfamiliar and gave a lot of difficulty to students. Student had positive opinion about the research process they experienced but did not recognize the fact that such a process was possible because of the oneness of the task. The level of the problems was rated as too difficult by teachers and college students but as appropriate by the middle school students in audience and participating students. This suggests that it is possible for student to convert the problems to be challengeable and intellectually satisfactory appropriate for their level of understanding even when the problems were difficult for middle school students. During the process of student discussion, a few problems were observed. Some problems were related to the technics of the discussion, such as inappropriate behavior for the role he/she was taking, mismatching answers to the questions. Some problems were related to thinking. For example, students thinking was off balanced toward deductive reasoning, and reasoning based on experimental data was weak. The last area of evaluation was the effect of the Contest. It was measured through the change of the attitude toward science and science classes, and willingness to attend the next Contest. According to the result of the questionnaire, no meaningful change in attitude was observed. However, through the interview several students were observed to have significant positive change in attitude while no student with negative change was observed. Most of the students participated in Contest said they would participate again or recommend their friend to participate. Most of the teachers agreed that the Contest should continue and they would recommend their colleagues or students to participate. As described above, the "Discussion Contest of Scientific Investigation", which was developed and tried as a new science contest, had positive response from participating students and teachers, and the audience. Two among the list of results especially demonstrated that the goal of the Contest, "active and cooperative science learning experience", was reached. One is the fact that students recognized the experience of cooperation, discussion, information search, variety of experiments to be fun and valuable. The other is the fact that the students recognized the format of the contest consisting of presentation, refutation, discussion and review, required more thinking and was challenging, but was more meaningful. Despite a few problems such as, unfamiliarity with the technics of discussion, weakness in inductive and/or experiment based reasoning, and difficulty in report writing, The Contest demonstrated the possibility of new science learning environment and science contest by offering the chance to challenge open tasks by utilizing student science knowledge and ability to inquire and to discuss rationally and critically with other students.