Introduction
Human health is an essential requirement to ensure people live without the fear of infections. Nations and individuals have established various ways of ensuring people access cheap and quality medical services. This essay is a review of the contributions of primary health care to the health system.
Background
This paper is based on research conducted on two groups of individuals belonging to different health care programs. These programs are models through which people are enrolled in health care systems and include F.H.N. (Family Health Networks) and F.H.G. (Family Health Groups). The first is based on capitation while the second is based on payments after service delivery. It was necessary to use these two models to assess their performance differences and compare their performances before and after physicians’ involvements.
Main Descriptions
The study included physicians and patients who enrolled within the two years of study while the administrative records provided the performance tracking system. The methods included measures to manage and prevent chronic diseases like cancer, asthma, diabetes, and heart failure (Jaakkimainen, Barnsley, Klein-Geltink, Kopp, and Glazier 2011). This was in line with the principles and practices of primary health care in the communities that necessitate patients, physicians, and community involvement in the program.
The paper highlights the need to develop community-based approaches to dealing with healthcare issues. The paper highlights the role physicians and patients play in facilitating the successful implementation of health programs as is evident in the roles they played in this. The use of F.H.N. and F.H.G. programs was a success in identifying the role payments play in enhancing the provision of quality treatment.
The results of these two systems revealed a minor variation inconsistency since, in some cases, the subjects’ performance was approaching the target figures. This included studies on mammograms and pap smears while, in other cases like in screening colorectal cancer, there was an improvement compared to past measures.
On the other hand, the results had no changes in improvement after joining either model in screening breast or cervical cancer screening. However, the results revealed a considerable improvement in screening colorectal cancer and prescriptions of performance measures (for diabetic patients) in individuals who joined either model (Jaakkimainen et al. 2011). However, the research showed that after joining either model, there was a decrease in the number of annual examinations among diabetic youths. This was also reflected in the absence of changes in performance procedures for disease management and control (asthma and heart failure) even after these patients joined the models.
This concludes that incentive payments play significant roles in improving the management and preventive screening of diabetes. The payments offered to physicians motivated them to make follow-ups on their patients and offer quality services (Jaakkimainen et al. 2011). They went the extra mile to ensure there was screening and management of chronic diseases among their patients. This is an effective way of ensuring these diseases are managed in society. This was evident in the progress noted in patients and physicians who joined either model. There is the need to make comparisons between capitation and fee for service models to identify aspects that affect the provision of quality healthcare services.
Paper Evaluation
The research paper has managed to explain the impacts of group-based healthcare provisions in improving the management and treatment of chronic diseases (Jaakkimainen et al. 2011). This is complicated research due to its large scope of coverage. In addition, it is not cheap research due to the health, financial and social implications involved in the study. Most people suffering from chronic infections fear being exposed to the public especially when they are to be used as specimens for study (Jaakkimainen et al. 2011). Therefore, this paper offers a glimpse of the expected outcomes in any region comprised of people suffering from chronic infections.
The methods used to collect data are reliable and accurate. The researchers obtained their information from government agencies responsible for collecting, recording, and keeping personal information (Jaakkimainen et al. 2011). The registration of the person department offered information regarding their residence to ensure every participant was a residence of the geographical area covered. In addition, the use of patients suffering from chronic infections was appropriate since it offered room for assessment and monitoring improvements. The development of two parallel models (F.H.N. and F.H.G.) that involved community groups was a crucial aspect of the research (Jaakkimainen et al. 2011). These enabled researchers to identify the effectiveness of incentives on physicians’ performance and also the patients’ expected outcomes.
There is a high possibility the outcomes of these findings were influenced by incentives offered to physicians. In all cases, there were improvements in patients’ willingness to go for screening and subsequent medical examinations (Jaakkimainen et al. 2011). This means that there is the need to offer incentives to physicians to motivate them and ensure they offer quality services; therefore, ensuring they help patients manage their treatment and examinations.
Even though the results showed a positive step in adult patients suffering from diabetes and heart failure, the results were different in youths suffering from the same diseases. They were reluctant to continue their medical examinations as is evident in their negative response to annual examinations.
Implications for the Organization and Functions of PHC
This paper has had a significant impact on the performance of physicians and patients in terms of monitoring performance, screening, and management of chronic infections. Moreover, the paper has identified key issues that will play significant roles in improving the delivery of healthcare services to the population.
First, the essay has identified the need for community and consumer participation in the implementation of their program. This has been a successful operation targeting all community participants. These participants include relevant government agencies like registrars of persons, ministries of immigration, population and settlements, and health departments (World Health Organization 2008). In addition, the essay focused on physicians and patients involved in various programs aimed at monitoring and managing chronic infections.
Secondly, the essay identifies teamwork as a vital tool for enhancing the implementation of various community-based health programs. There will be difficulties in implementing any programs if there is no cooperation among players. There is the need to have collaboration between the government, community, physicians, and patients (World Health Organization 2008). This will facilitate the easy implementation of programs established to manage screen and control chronic and other infections.
Thirdly, the program has involved integrated care procedures that will facilitate treatment and management of chronic infections. This will create room for easy implementation of treatment programs aimed at managing infections.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the research findings will work with integrated primary care institutions like community models in fighting chronic infections. It will be easy to facilitate monitoring and evaluation of programs established to promote community health through identifying incentive programs. Primary health care contributes to the implementation of health care programs making service delivery affordable and available to the community.
References
Jaakkimainen, R. L., Jan Barnsley, Julie Klein-Geltink, Alexander Kopp and Richard H. Glazier 2011, Did Changing Primary Care Delivery Models Change Performance? A Population Based Study Using Health Administrative Data. Web.
World Health Organization 2008, The World Health Report. Primary Health Care. Geneva: World Health Organization. Web.