Brockway C R, Jones K E
North Lincolnshire Health Authority, District Headquarters.
Public Health. 1993 Jan;107(1):45-52. doi: 10.1016/s0033-3506(05)80492-5.
Using a tested survey protocol, to obtain under comparable circumstances the opinions and subjective assessments of general practitioners regarding health care services in a contrasting rural health district, to obtain indications of those services which, by reason of the opinions of general practitioners in relation to their quantity and quality, might benefit from further enquiry or even detailed assessment and, as in the previous survey, to facilitate the close working with general practitioners without which population based needs assessment and further enquiry and research into the development of healthcare services will be handicapped.
A postal questionnaire survey of all general practitioners in the health district.
North Lincolnshire health district.
One hundred and forty eight general practitioners, of whom 104 responded, two by letter only.
Scores of quantity and of quality for 24 hospital services and 32 community services. The frequency with which services were identified as a priority for improvement, and written comments about the services surveyed.
Most services were thought by general practitioners to be adequate or better in both quantity and quality, involving a surprising degree of agreement. In only six of the 56 services were these considered by more than 50% of the doctors responding to be inadequate or grossly inadequate in quantity, and in only eight services were these found by more than 15% of doctors to be poor or very poor in quality. Complaints about quantity of service were more frequent than complaints about quality of service, and community services received more complaints from general practitioners about both quality and quantity than the hospital services. The services most general practitioners wanted improved were orthopaedics, psychiatry, physiotherapy and chiropody.
This survey confirmed the suitability of the postal questionnaire for assessing the impressions of general practitioners about both the quantity and quality of services available in their support. Consistent agreement between general practitioners about the services surveyed parallel a comparable survey undertaken in a largely urban area, showing close similarities with the results of this survey with only relatively minor local variations. The results provide pointers for health needs assessment of key services.
采用经过测试的调查方案，在可比情况下获取全科医生对一个反差较大的农村卫生区医疗服务的意见和主观评估；找出那些因全科医生对其数量和质量的看法而可能需要进一步调查甚至详细评估的服务；并且像上次调查一样，促进与全科医生的密切合作，没有这种合作，基于人群的需求评估以及对医疗服务发展的进一步调查和研究将受到阻碍。
对卫生区内所有全科医生进行邮政问卷调查。
北林肯郡卫生区。
148名全科医生，其中104人回复，2人仅通过信函回复。
24项医院服务和32项社区服务的数量得分和质量得分。被确定为优先改进服务的频率，以及对所调查服务的书面评论。
全科医生认为大多数服务在数量和质量上都足够或更好，这一程度令人惊讶。在56项服务中，只有6项被超过50%回复的医生认为数量不足或严重不足，只有8项服务被超过15%的医生认为质量差或非常差。对服务数量的抱怨比对服务质量的抱怨更频繁，并且社区服务在质量和数量方面比医院服务收到全科医生更多的抱怨。大多数全科医生希望改进的服务是骨科、精神病学、物理治疗和足病治疗。
本次调查证实了邮政问卷适用于评估全科医生对其可获得服务的数量和质量的印象。全科医生对所调查服务的一致看法与在一个主要为城市地区进行的类似调查相似，与本次调查结果显示出密切相似性，仅存在相对较小的局部差异。研究结果为关键服务的健康需求评估提供了指导。
