Bendrosios praktikos gydytojo vaidmuo pirminėje sveikatos priežiūroje
Masiulis, Kęstutis | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Gaižauskienė, Aldona | Recenzentas / Rewiewer |
Vaitkus, Rimantas | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Minkevičius, Aleksandras | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Malkevičius, Ričardas | Darbo gynimo komisijos pirmininkas / Thesis Defence Board Chairman |
Astrauskas, Algirdas | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Obrazcovas, Vladimiras | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
General practitioner (GP/family doctor) is a physician having completed secondary or interrupted resident study (till 1995 requalification cources) of the speciality of general practitioner who has a licence of the GP (family doctor) and can independently provide primary health care for persons from birth till death independing of their age, sex, political and religion convictions. The aims: to determine the changes in the role of general practitioner during the reform of primary health care. Material and methods: in June – September, 2006 questionaire of GP was held in Vilnius and Kaunas. The data were obtained applying the methods of randomly chosen groups by allowing for the type of health care institution: public or private. For the analysis questionaires were used. Warranty of anonimity of responses of GP was ensured. Every respondent was given 22 questions which reflected their opinion about the services provided, about places of work, supply with equipment and their attitude towards the reform of the primary health care. Results and conclusions: In Lithuania juridical foundation of GP institution has been already provided. The restructuring of health care institution has been started by giving the priority to the institution of family. GP render more health service, fulfil more functions and have the greatest number of patients. The reasons hindering private practice changed. In 1999 these reasons were characterized as uncertain future of the speciality of GP, unfavourable financing, insufficient information on general practice, lack of finances. In 2006 GPs name the insufficient financing as the main negative factor. Private institutions provide primary health care while public institutions provide both primary and secondary level services. After separating those levels finances can be used better in the primary health care. In private institutions GPs have less work record than in public institutions. These institutions from the stand point of policy of personnel are more perspective. There no GPs satisfied with the salary in public nor in private institutions. Respondents having higher work record (>25 years) are more unsatisfied with the salary. Number of GPs who are partially satisfied with the salary is larger in private institutions then in public institutions. Motivation for physicians to work is higher in private institutions than in public institutions. GPs who work both in public and private institutions have negative opinion in assessing health care reform.