|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 285
Workshop B
-
Ianice Robinson
There were five threads that ran through much of the discussion in our
group over the past couple of days. First, there was general consensus among
the group about the value of community oriented primary care (COPC).
However, a good deal of discussion centered around defining what is ac-
tually meant by COPC.
A second thread was concern over lack of epidemiologic data for planning
services delivery through COPC or, at least, the lack of full exploitation of
the data that may already exist.
Thirdly, as has already been implied and in some cases explicitly stated
in the major papers, participants in Workshop B expressed concern that
the economic situation, which is difficult at best, in a very real way threatens
those samples or models of COPC that already do exist, both in the services
delivery arena and in the health education field.
A fourth theme that coursed through the discussion was the need for
some real emphasis on the cognitive preparation for providers who will, in
fact, work in COPC.
Finally, a fifth thread running through the discussion pertained tO the
frequent mention, in the presentations, of COPC as a cost-effective mech-
anism. This may be true, but it needs to be documented. The group felt
strongly that a new discipline of COPC needs to be created.
A number of specific suggestions emerged from the discussion. In an
effort to address the issue of documenting the cost-effectiveness of COPC,
it was suggested that an arbitrary number of sites (perhaps 25), already
possessing most of the COPC elements, be identified and an economic and
285
OCR for page 286
286
PART III: WORKSHOP DISCUSSION SUMMARIES
epidemiologic evaluation be conducted using data that are already available.
Half of these sites could be main stream and half could be from underserved
areas. A broad range of geographic locations and practice models (solo,
group, local health agencies, etc.) might be used. It would also be important
to have multidisciplinary teams present at many of these sites. Use of the
National Health Service Corps in this kind of effort was suggested.
Another suggestion was aimed at provider preparation. The group pro-
posed that several centers (perhaps four to six) be identified to develop
programs specifically geared to training health care providers in COPC.
This training should be based at several levels. The group felt strongly that
such training not be dominated by medical schools. All efforts at developing
COPC need to be coordinated, and training centers need to have access to
the already-existing COPC centers discussed above.
The workshop participants suggested that the concept of COPC be shared
with the community. The sense was that if the people knew and agreed
with the concept, COPC would have strong backing for funding proposals.
In summary, the workshop proved to be a valuable opportunity for all
in attendance to discuss and explore the concept of COPC in various models.
Although more questions were generated than answers provided, it pro-
vided a rekindling of excitement in the minds of many who have a strong
dedication to the health care needs of our nation and who are interested
in developing innovative ways of best meeting those needs for all people.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
strong dedication
