Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

B G Bentsen

Publications and source records attributed to B G Bentsen.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1991

[Why do people contact physicians? The development of the core classification of primary health care].

The Norwegian study on reasons for contacting physicians comprised part of a large international project. The aim of this project was to develop an international classification of the different reasons why patients contact the health services. In 1978 the World Health Organization appointed an expert working party and outlined the principles for the new classification, based mainly on other WHO classifications. A trial version of the classification was tested by general practitioners in nine countries. The Norwegian study involved 11 general practionners. It comprised 8,337 consecutive encounters and 11,865 reasons for these encounters. 65% of the reason were symptoms or observational diagnosis, 13% were specific diagnoses. 16% of the reasons were preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. 6% contacted the physician for administrative reasons. The International Classification of Primary Care is simple, logical and easy to use. It is based on extensive research carried out in general practice. It represents the bio-psycho-social "whole person" concept of primary care. ICPC includes WHO-approved cross-codes for the International Classification of Diseases, ICD.

Family Practice↗
PubMed1986

International classification of primary care.

"Health for all by year 2000" was the subject of the WHO Conference at Alma-Ata in 1978. It was evident that good primary care was a requirement to reach this goal. However, knowledge about this was scanty, and the instrument, an acceptable classification for analyses of primary care, was lacking. Since 1978 a WHO Working Party on Classifications of Primary Care has been working on a Reason for Encounter Classification. A RFEC test form was produced. In 1983 a feasibility study was conducted in nine countries: Australia, Barbados, Brazil, Hungary, Malaysia, The Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, and the USA. The results of this were changing the original proposal very much. In addition, the WONCA/WHO Classification of Health Problems in Primary Care was included in the final version. In 1984 this final version was accepted by WONCA Classification Committee. This is called ICPC = The International Classification of Primary Care. ICPC is biaxial with the chapters of organ/organ systems along the one axis, in addition of three chapters: General, Mental, and Social problems. The other axis comprises seven components: Complaints, Process and Diagnosis. An alphanumeric code is used. The feasibility study of RFEC comprised ten test sites, and 138 primary care professionals recorded a total of 100 452 reasons for encounter. The English version of the RFEC was translated into five other languages, and these versions were used during the study. ICPC is a comprehensive, simple and practicable classification which can be used in medical records and in different areas of primary care research.

Diagnosis↗
PubMed1984

The pitfalls of the denominator: towards an accurate estimation of a population at risk.

Observations in epidemiological, operational or sociomedical research often need to be related to a denominator to obtain a measure of rate. Defining the denominator for a particular population at risk is a difficult task. The basis of this study was a census track study combined with a survey questionnaire which included every household in a part of Nes municipality, in Norway. This meant it was possible to define the population at risk nearly perfectly. The results were compared with official records and the records of general practitioners. Some of the pitfalls in deciding on the population at risk are discussed: the newborn and the dead, the migrants, the institutionalized, the incomplete census tract, patients in contact with other physicians, the non-attenders, including 'the forgotten'. Eight different approaches to the estimation of the denominator are briefly commented on.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1984

Fundamentals of general medical practice.

In many countries there is a recognized specialist education for general practice, corresponding to those offered for organ specialties. Why, then, is general practice not recognized everywhere as a full specialty? It has been suggested that general practice is characterized by an easily available, continuous, personal, binding and comprehensive care. However, there are also other aspects which characterize this discipline. Firstly it is based on an overall view of health and disease, in which physical, mental, and social factors must be taken into account simultaneously. Secondly the epidemiological world, as seen by the primary physician, is different from those of all traditional specialties. This gives rise to considerable consequences in diagnostic and therapeutic work, as reflected in the predictive values of tests and for symptoms in general practice, when contrasted with specialist practice. Thirdly, the approach to problem solving is also very different. In general practice, it is characterized by thinking in terms of possibility or probability, whereas in specialist practice the reductionistic method is used. A fourth factor can also be pin-pointed. Although the primary physician is responsible for the greater part of diagnosis and treatment of illness in the population, he also co-ordinates the patient's contact with the second and third line services in the hospital and in specialized medicine. Therefore, general practice is an independent medical discipline, which demands its own specialist education.

Delivery of Health Care↗
PubMed1984

Record keeping in Norwegian general practice.

Routines of medical record keeping were studied in a random sample of 50 out of 228 general practitioners in two counties, Möre & Romsdal and Sör-Tröndelag. One doctor refused to participate and one had retired. The 48 physicians were interviewed and a questionnaire was completed with details about their record keeping. The standard of the records was assessed according to legibility, quality of notes, past history and tidiness using a score system. All general practitioners had records for every patient, but the quality of the records varied considerably. More than 50 per cent used handwriting in progress notes, which varied from diagnostic labels to extended reports. Few records contained accessible background information about the patient concerned, and many records contained large amounts of old and irrelevant papers. The record-scores varied from 3 to maximum 10 with an average of 6.7. Higher Standards of recording in general practice are called for, since the quality of records does not only affect the individual patient, but, in the end, the quality of medical care in general.

Adult↗