• 농촌의학ㆍ지역보건
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.353-377
• /
• 2000

보건진료소의 보건의료환경 및 근무여건, 업무현황과 개선에 대한 보건진료원의 의견을 파악하여 향후 보건진료소의 발전 방안을 제시하는데 도움을 주고자 경상북도 소재 보건진료소(1996년 330개소, 1999년 313개소)의 운영상황보고서에 의한 업무 변화량을 분석하였으며, 보건진료원 280명의 설문자료를 분석하였다. 운영상황보고서에 의한 보건진료소의 관할인구 추이는 1996년에 비해 1999년에 전반적으로 감소하였으나 노인인구는 증가하였다. 운영상황보고서에 의한 보건진료소의 업무 활동상황은 1996년도에 비해 전반적으로 증가하였고, 진찰 및 투약관리, 검사, 성인병 및 만성질환관리, 노인건강, 가정방문이 특히 증가하였으며, 전염병 관리와 결핵관리에서 부분적인 감소를 보였다. 재정운영상태는 50.4%가 운영이 잘된다고 하였고, 1.4%만이 운영하기 곤란하다고 하였는데, 현 근무지 근무연수가 많을수록(p<0.05), 그리고 도시근교일수확, 인구가 많을수록, 진찰 및 투약건수가 많을수록(p<0.01) 운영이 잘 된다고 하였다. 보건진료원의 직업적 긍지는 전반적으로 긍정적이었는데, 그 중 하는 일의 중요함이 94.6%로 가장 긍정적이었고, 역할과 임무에 대한 만족정도는 현 근무지 근무연수에 따라 차이가 있었다(p<0.05). 보건진료원들의 보건기관과 민간의료기관과의 협조정도는 대체로 긍정적이었는데, 보건소와 협조정도는 연령이 많을수록, 근무 경력이 길수록 긍정적인 응답률이 유의하게 높았으며(p<0.01), 현 근무지 근무연수에 따라 차이가 있었다(p<0.05). 보건진료원들은 운영협의회, 마을건강원, 지역사회조직과도 협조적이다는 응답이 모두 70% 이상이었다. 보건진료소 사업계획서는 96.4%가 적성하였으며, 제2기 지역보건의료계획서 작성에는 11.4%만이 참여하였다. 관할지역주민의 혈압과 흡연여부를 70% 이상 파악하고 있는 보건 진료원은 각각 88.2%, 63.9% 였는데, 혈압파악률은 보건진료원의 연령이 많을수록(p<0.01), 교육정도가 전문대학 이하인 경우(p<0.05)에서 높았다. 보건진료원의 지난 3년 동안에 보수교육외 교육 참여율, 연구사업 참여율은 각각 27.5%로 저조했으며, 보건진료소 수입으로 주민환원 사업을 실시한 경우는 65.4%였다. 보건진료원들이 생각하는 보건진료소의 필요 정도는 국가적 측면, 소속시군 측면, 관할지역 측면에서 모두 95% 이상이 매우 필요 또는 필요하다고 하였으며, 53.9%가 보건진료소의 역할이 증대되어야 한다고 하였다. 지금까지 폐쇄 및 폐쇄 예정된 보건진료소에 대하여 보건진료원은 담당 부서의 보건진료소 업무에 대한 인식부족 및 행정편의, 보건진료원의 신분이 법률로 보장되지 않은 별정직이어서, 단체장의 의지 등을 주된 이유로 제시하였다. 보건진료원은 향후 보건진료소에 대한 평가기준에 대해 노인 및 만성질환자 등의 보건의료서비스 대상자수, 주민의 의견, 인구 규모, 일상생활권을 고려한 교통상황 등의 순으로 제시하였으며, 보건진료원에 대한 평가기준으로는 보건사업실적, 주민과의 유대정도, 진료실적, 행정 및 업무처리 능력 등의 순으로 제시하였다. 객관적인 평가 후 일정기준이하의 보건진료소에 대한 향후 대처 방안에 대해서 보건진료원은 현 구조 유지하면서 업무개선, 도시 의료취약지역으로의 보건진료소 위치 조정 등을 많이 제시하였다. 보건진료소의 가장 필요한 개선부문으로는 절반 이상인 52.5%가 보건진료원의 업무조정이라고 하였으며, 향후 보건진료소가 중점적으로 추진하여야 한 사업으로는 당뇨 및 고혈압 관리, 방문보건사업, 노인보건사업 등이 중요하다고 하였다. 향후 보건진료소가 일차보건의료의 가치체계를 잘 반영하는 조직이 되기 위하여는 지역사회 보건의료요구에 부합하는 업무개선이 이루어져야 하겠으며, 만성질환관리사업, 방문보건사업, 노인보건사업 등이 활성화 되어야 하겠다.

• 한국과학교육학회지
• /
• 제16권4호
• /
• pp.376-388
• /
• 1996

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.