Table 4 |
||||||||
|
Perceived strengths and weaknesses of different models |
||||||||
|
Small family doctor based models |
Large family doctor based models |
Hospital based and national models |
||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Individual general family practice (N = 3) |
Rota group (N = 21) |
GP coopera-tive (N = 9) |
Primary care center (N = 5) |
Deputizing service (N = 3) |
A&E department (N = 7) |
Telephone triage and advice (N = 3) |
Integrated care (N = 1) |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Continuity of care |
- |
0 |
0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
|
Efficiency |
0 |
0 |
+ |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
+ |
|
Accessibility |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
0 |
- |
+ |
0 |
|
Coordination of care |
0 |
0 |
+ |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
+ |
|
Satisfaction physicians |
0 |
- |
+ |
- |
0 |
0 |
- |
0 |
|
Satisfaction other professionals |
0 |
0 |
+ |
0 |
+ |
0 |
- |
0 |
|
Satisfaction patients |
0 |
+ |
+ |
0 |
0 |
+ |
+ |
- |
|
Safety of triage |
0 |
+ |
+ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
+ |
|
|
||||||||
|
Legend + = potential strength, no or few problems (median < 2); 0 = neutral, some problems (median = 3); - = potential weakness, many to major problems (median > 2). Changes after the second mailing led to some missings; therefore, the number of most used models is lower. |
||||||||
|
Huibers et al. BMC Health Services Research 2009 9:105 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-105 |
||||||||
