Search

Since the early 1990s, the primary care system in Turkey has undergone fundamental changes. In the first decade of the millennium family doctor scheme was introduced to the Turkish primary care sector and the name of the primary care doctors (PCDs) changed from general practitioner (GP) to family doctor (FD). This study aims to give an insight into those changes and to compare the service profiles of PCDs in 1993 and 2012. Data, based on cross sectional surveys among Turkish doctors working in primary care are derived from the 1993 European GP Task Profile study (n=199) and the 2012 Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study (n=299). The study focuses on the changes in the primary care service provision based on selected aspects such as the first contact of care, preventive care, and the knowledge exchange and collaboration with other health professionals. Compared to GPs in 1993, FDs in 2012 reported that their involvement in treatment of chronic diseases, first contact care, antenatal and child health care have increased. FDs have more contact with other primary healthcare workers but their contact with hospital consultants have decreased. Overall, the services provided by PCDs seem to be expanded. However, the quality of care given by FDs and its effects on health indicators are needed to be explored by further studies. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background Residents are one of the key stakeholders of specialty training. The Turkish Board of Family Medicine wanted to pursue a realistic and structured approach in the design of the specialty training programme. This approach required the development of a needs-based core curriculum built on evidence obtained from residents about their needs for specialty training and their needs in the current infrastructure. The aim of this study was to obtain evidence on residents' opinions and views about Family Medicine specialty training. Methods This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study. The board prepared a questionnaire to investigate residents' views about some aspects of the education programme such as duration and content, to assess the residents' learning needs as well as their need for a training infrastructure. The questionnaire was distributed to the Family Medicine Departments (n = 27) and to the coordinators of Family Medicine residency programmes in state hospitals (n = 11) by e-mail and by personal contact. Results A total of 191 questionnaires were returned. The female/male ratio was 58.6%/41.4%. Nine state hospitals and 10 university departments participated in the study. The response rate was 29%. Forty-five percent of the participants proposed over three years for the residency duration with either extensions of the standard rotation periods in pediatrics and internal medicine or reductions in general surgery. Residents expressed the need for extra rotations (dermatology 61.8%; otolaryngology 58.6%; radiology 52.4%). Fifty-nine percent of the residents deemed a rotation in a private primary care centre necessary, 62.8% in a state primary care centre with a proposed median duration of three months. Forty-seven percent of the participants advocated subspecialties for Family Medicine, especially geriatrics. The residents were open to new educational methods such as debates, training with models, workshops and e-learning. Participation in courses and congresses was considered necessary. The presence of a department office and the clinical competency of the educators were more favored by state residents. Conclusions This study gave the Board the chance to determine the needs of the residents that had not been taken into consideration sufficiently before. The length and the content of the programme will be revised according to the needs of the residents.