| Literature DB >> 29262798 |
Bertolt Kuhn1, Kim-Sarah Kleij2, Sebastian Liersch2, Jost Steinhäuser3, Volker Amelung2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Facing rising inequities and poorer accessibility of physicians in rural areas, new healthcare delivery structures are being considered to support local healthcare in German communities. To better understand perspectives on and attitudes towards different supplementary models, we examined attitudes among local politicians in the German federal state of Lower Saxony towards the suitability of supplementary care models.Entities:
Keywords: Communities; Delegation; Mobility; Physician shortage; Primary healthcare; Supplementary care models; Telemedicine
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29262798 PMCID: PMC5738820 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-017-0696-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Fam Pract ISSN: 1471-2296 Impact factor: 2.497
Basic characteristics of the supplementary models. Icon sources: Designed by Freepik and distributed by & Shutterstock
Fig. 2Study population in Lower Saxony. Map modified from [49]
Fig. 3Satisfaction & assessment of good accessibility regarding outpatient healthcare in urban and rural areas
Fig. 4Summarized assessment of supplementary models in health care
Summary of categorized arguments about and associations with the supplementary models
| Trained medical assistant | Positive | Work-relief for physicians ( | Improve treatment quality and care ( | Support for the provision of home visits ( | Appropriate tasks for delegation (n = 12) | Positive experiences with similar concepts ( | Remedy for physician shortage ( |
| Negative | Lack of acceptance and trust ( | Not an adequate substitute for a doctor (n = 7) | No general need (n = 6) | Concerns about treatment quality (n = 5) | |||
| Patients‘bus | Positive | Good addition to existing public transport ( | Similar public transport systems available or planned ( | Suitable to ensure mobility and accessibility ( | Suitable supplement for rural and widespread areas ( | ||
| Negative | Sufficient mobility offers available (n = 25) | High effort and costs ( | Not suitable for the specific community and settlement structure (n = 12) | Low demand and utilization projected (n = 6) | Not necessary due to good accessibility or short distances to medical practices ( | ||
| Mobile physicians‘office | Positive | Suitable supplement for rural and widespread areas (n = 16) | Sufficient to secure the supply of medical treatment (n = 7) | ||||
| Negative | Lack of acceptance and trust ( | Not necessary due to good accessibility or short distances to medical practices ( | Not suitable for the specific community and settlement structure (n = 20) | No general need ( | Concerns about treatment quality ( | Inefficient use of doctors due to travel expenses ( | |
| Telemedicine | Positive | Suitable for specific group of persons (n = 10) | Forward-looking model with potential (n = 7) | Suitable for specific indications (n = 6) | |||
| Negative | Not suitable for older people ( | Impersonal type of treatment ( | Poor availability of necessary technology (n = 29) | Concerns about treatment quality (n = 16) | Lack of acceptance and trust (n = 14) | ||