4.2 Article

Assessing the satisfaction levels among doctors who embark on after-hours home visits in Australia

期刊

FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 82-88

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmv084

关键词

After-hours and deputizing services; family physicians; general practice; GPs; satisfaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Despite the growing popularity of after-hours house calls (AHHCs) in Australia, no previous study had ever looked at satisfaction among the involved practitioners. The high number of overseas-trained doctors in Australia makes this a subject of international significance. Objective. To determine the levels of satisfaction and its significant associations among doctors in AHHCs. Methods. Design, setting and participants: A quantitative, questionnaire-based survey of all 300 doctors engaged in AHHCs through the National Home Doctor Service (NHDS), Australia's largest home-visit doctor service provider. Main outcome measure: Satisfaction was assessed using the modified, 10-item Warr-Cook-Wall tool. Results. A total of 168 valid responses (56.0% response rate) were received. Mean satisfaction scores for each of the 10 items ranged from 3.02 to 3.86, indicating 'moderate' to 'very satisfied' levels. Overall satisfaction was 85.9%, mostly related to 'freedom of work and independence', 'amount of responsibility' and 'income'. Doctors in existing legal unions are more satisfied than the single, separated or widowed ones on the 'amount of responsibility' [odds ratio (OR) = 6.50, P = 0.02, confidence interval (CI): 1.33-31.72], while those engaged for <24 hours/week are less satisfied on 'income' than full-time ones (OR = 0.30, P = 0.01, CI: 0.13-0.71). The 'adoption of protective measures', being 'aged >40', being 'male' and 'working in Brisbane, Adelaide or the Gold Coast' are other doctor variables associated with increased satisfaction. Conclusions. Satisfaction levels among AHHC GPs in Australia are comparable to the levels seen among their colleagues in regular-hour jobs, but there is still room for improvement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据